WOB TOD Addendum - City of OaklandPage 2 WOB TOD Project Addendum II. Executive Summary The project...

WOB TOD Project

Addendum #1

to the WOSP EIR (SCH#2012102047) January 2019

Lead Agency:

City of Oakland Planning and Building Department

250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Suite 2114

Oakland, CA 94612

Prepared By:

Lamphier–Gregory 1944 Embarcadero

Oakland, CA 94606

WOB TOD Project Addendum Page i

Table of Contents

I. Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 1

II. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 2

III. Purpose and Organization of this CEQA Document ..................................................... 3 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Standard Conditions of Approval ............................................................................................................ 4 Organization..................................................................................................................................................... 4

IV. Project Description .......................................................................................................... 5 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Project Approvals ......................................................................................................................................... 21

V. Project Consistency Assessment .................................................................................. 22 Proposed Project .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Project Consistency ..................................................................................................................................... 22

VI. Summary of CEQA Findings .......................................................................................... 30

VII. Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................... 31 A. Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind ........................................................................................................... 32 B. Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 33 C. Biological Resources .............................................................................................................................. 36 D. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................................. 37 E. Geology, Soils, and Geohazards ......................................................................................................... 39 F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ........................................................................ 40 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 43 H. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 45 I. Land Use ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 J. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................. 48 K. Population & Housing ........................................................................................................................... 50 M. Transportation and Circulation ......................................................................................................... 52 N. Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 60

Acronyms and Terms ............................................................................................................ 61

Page ii WOB TOD Project Addendum

Attachments

A: City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval

Tables

1: Project Development Summary ....................................................................................................... 6

2: Evaluation of Consistency with General Plan and WOSP .............................................................. 24

3: Summary of Project GHG Emissions .............................................................................................. 41

4: Trip Generation for Development Projects within the WOSP Area ............................................... 54

5: Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary .......................................................................................... 58

Figures

1: Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 7

2: Project Development Areas and Possible Phasing........................................................................... 8

3: Floor Plan, Ground Level .................................................................................................................. 9

4: Floor Plan, 2nd Floor ....................................................................................................................... 10

5: Floor Plan, 3rd‐4th Floors ................................................................................................................. 11

6: Floor Plan, 5th Floor ........................................................................................................................ 12



9: Floor Plan, 8th‐18th Floors ............................................................................................................... 15

10: Floor Plan, 19th‐28th Floors ............................................................................................................. 16

11: Floor Plan, Basement Level ............................................................................................................ 17

12: Illustrative View, Looking South .................................................................................................... 18

13: Illustrative View, Looking North .................................................................................................... 19

WOB TOD Project Addendum Page 1

I. Project Characteristics

1. Project Title: West Oakland BART Transportation‐Oriented Development (WOB TOD) Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakland Bureau of Planning 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114 Oakland, CA 94612

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Dara O’Byrne, City Planner 510.238.6983 DO'[email protected]

4. Project Location: 1451 7th Street Oakland, CA

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 004‐0077‐003 and 004‐0071‐003

5. Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) /

Strategic Urban Development Alliance (SUDA) JV Partnership 4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 275 San Ramon, CA 94583

6. Existing General Plan Designations: Community Commercial (West Oakland Specific Plan)

7. Existing Zoning: S‐15W (Transit‐Oriented Development Commercial Zones)

Height Limit: 60’ (western half) and 100’ (eastern half)

8. Requested Approvals: Planned Unit Development / Preliminary Development Plan

Regular Design Review

Vesting Tentative Parcel Map

Page 2 WOB TOD Project Addendum

II. Executive Summary

The project represents establishment of the transit‐oriented development (TOD) as contemplated in the West Oakland Specific Plan (WOSP) on the site surrounding the West Oakland BART station. The project would demolish the existing 451‐space West Oakland BART station surface parking lot and associated circulation and construct three new mid‐rise and high‐rise buildings, retail under the BART tracks, and a row of residential duplexes for a total of 762 residential units, 382,460 square feet of office space, and up to 75,000 square feet of ground‐floor retail uses. The project also includes a 400‐space underground parking lot, a surface plaza, and circulation elements. The project takes advantage of the 25 percent PUD residential bonus, the 35 percent State Affordable Housing Density Bonus, and includes a minor variance for group open space.

As presented in Section VI: Summary of Findings, this Addendum has determined that the West Oakland BART TOD project qualifies for an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and that the WOSP EIR and this Addendum comprises the full and complete CEQA evaluation necessary for the proposed project and no further CEQA evaluation for the project is required.

The Section V: Project Consistency Assessment provides substantial evidence that the project is generally consistent with applicable plans and regulations.

The Section VII: Environmental Checklist provides substantial evidence pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that with implementation of the applicable SCAs, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified in the WOSP EIR or any new significant impacts that were not previously identified in the WOSP EIR.


III. Purpose and Organization of this CEQA Document

Purpose The purpose of this CEQA document is to analyze the West Oakland BART TOD Project, proposed at 1451 7th Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 004‐007‐700‐300 and 004‐007‐100‐300), to determine if it qualifies for an Addendum pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 such that no additional environmental review is required.

The project site is within the 7th Street Opportunity Area of the West Oakland Specific Plan (WOSP) Area. The City adopted the WOSP and certified the associated EIR in 2014 (State Clearinghouse No. 2012102047). The WOSP identifies policies to guide future development in West Oakland by providing a comprehensive and multi‐faceted strategy for development and redevelopment of vacant and/or underutilized commercial and industrial properties in strategic areas (Opportunity Areas) of West Oakland. The WOSP establishes a land use and development framework, identifies needed transportation and infrastructure improvements, and recommends implementation strategies needed to develop these areas. Subsequent activities under the WOSP are subject to environmental requirements pursuant to the WOSP EIR. The effects of future growth and development within West Oakland were fully considered in the cumulative growth projections factored into the WOSP EIR analysis. The WOSP EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of implementation of the WOSP, including development of the project site.

The WOSP EIR is hereby incorporated by reference and can be obtained from the City of Oakland Bureau of Planning at 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114, Oakland, California, 94612, and on the City of Oakland Planning and Building Department website at: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/OurServices/Application/DOWD009157.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that an Addendum to a certified EIR is allowed when minor changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions for preparation of a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 are satisfied. Section 15162 further specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared unless one or more of the following conditions are met:

1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;


B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The Environmental Checklist contained in this document summarizes the impact findings of the WOSP EIR, which is the underlying EIR for the proposed project, and assesses whether impacts of the proposed project would fall within those identified in the WOSP EIR or whether new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the WOSP EIR are identified which would trigger the need for a subsequent EIR.

Standard Conditions of Approval The City established its Standard Conditions of Approval and Uniformly Applied Development Standards in 2008, and they have since been amended and revised several times. The City’s SCAs are incorporated into new and changed projects as conditions of approval regardless of a project’s environmental determination. The SCAs incorporate policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (such as the Oakland Planning and Municipal Codes, Oakland Creek Protection Ordinance, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Oakland Protected Trees Ordinance, Oakland Grading Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Housing Element‐related mitigation measures, California Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, among others), which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects. The SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City and are designed to, and will, substantially mitigate environmental effects.

Note that the SCAs included in this document are referred to using an abbreviation for the environmental topic area and are numbered sequentially for each topic area—e.g., SCA‐AIR‐1, SCA‐AIR‐2. The SCA title is also provided—e.g., SCA‐AIR‐1: Construction‐Related Air Pollution (Dust and Equipment Emissions). Finally, the current City of Oakland master‐list SCA numbering is included though it should be noted that this numbering can change as SCAs are added or deleted.

Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, a determination of whether the project would have a significant impact assumes implementation of required SCAs. Attachment A includes the complete Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP).

Organization This document describes the proposed project in Section IV, Project Description, and documents the project’s consistency with the WOSP in Section V, Project Consistency Assessment. Section VI, Summary of Findings, provides an overview of the environmental analysis conclusions. The potential environmental impacts of the project are detailed in Section VII, Environmental Checklist, which identifies the impact findings of the WOSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and relevant City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) and explains whether the project would cause new or more significant environmental impacts than those identified in the WOSP EIR.


IV. Project Description

This section describes the proposed West Oakland BART TOD project evaluated in this Addendum and includes a description of the project site, existing site conditions, the proposed development, and the required project approvals.

Project Location As shown in Figure 1, the approximately 5.58‐acre site encompassing the West Oakland BART station is bounded by 7th Street to the north, 5th Street to the south, Chester Street to the west, and Mandela Parkway to the east. The project site consists of two parcels at 1451 7th Street (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 004‐007‐700‐300 and 004‐007‐100‐300).

Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses

The project site is a rectangular lot occupied by the West Oakland BART station and associated surface parking and circulation. Vegetation onsite is currently limited to some street and parking lot landscaping and trees.

Existing land uses in the vicinity include multi‐story commercial and residential development to the north, parking/fuel station/vacant lot to the east, light industrial and low‐rise residential to the south, and low‐rise residential to the west.

General Plan and Zoning Designations

The Oakland General Plan and WOSP designate the project site as Community Commercial. This designation seeks to encourage neighborhood center uses and larger scale retail and commercial uses, which can be complemented by the addition of urban residential development and compatible mixed use development.

The project site is zoned as Transit‐Oriented Development Commercial Zone (S‐15W), which is intended to feature high‐density residential, commercial, and mixed‐use developments to encourage a balance of pedestrian‐oriented activities, transit opportunities, and concentrated development near transit stations.

The proposed uses (mixed‐use multi‐family residential, office, and retail) are allowable under the General Plan designation and zoning. A more detailed consistency discussion is included in Section VI of this document.

Proposed Project The project sponsor is proposing to demolish the existing 451‐space West Oakland BART station surface parking lot and associated circulation and construct three new mid‐rise and high‐rise buildings, retail under the BART tracks, and a row of residential duplexes for a total of 762 residential units, 382,460 square feet of office space, and up to 75,000 square feet of ground‐floor retail uses. The project also includes a 400‐space underground parking lot, a surface plaza, and circulation elements. The BART station and tracks will remain. The project represents establishment of the transit‐oriented development (TOD) contemplated in the WOSP on the site surrounding the West Oakland BART station.


The proposed project would consist of the following development, split into four development areas labeled T‐1 through T‐4 as shown on Figure 2 and summarized in Table 1:

• T‐1: 28‐story 320‐foot tall high‐rise building with 500 residential units, 82,460 square feet of office, and 17,185 square feet of ground‐floor retail

• T‐2: surface plaza with 7,670 square feet of retail under the BART tracks

• T‐3: 7‐story, 80‐foot tall mid‐rise residential building of 240 multi‐family units and 22 3‐story residential duplex units and 15,200 square feet of ground‐floor retail

• T‐4: 8‐story, 100‐foot tall mid‐rise commercial office building with 300,000 square feet of office

and 30,800 square feet of ground‐floor retail

Table 1. Project Development Summary

Uses T1 T2 T3 T4 Total

Office 82,460 sf 300,000 sf 382,460 sf

Retail 17,185 sf 7,670 sf 15,200 sf 30,800 sf up to 75,000 sf 1

Residential 500 units 240 units

+22 duplexes 762 units

Parking 286 stalls 114 stalls 400 stalls 1 Total retail square footage has been increased from the proposed 70,855 square feet to allow

some flexibility in ground level design tweaks for up to 75,000 square feet of retail, which is what has been analyzed in this document.

Figures 3 through 11 show the floor plans and Figures 12 and 13 show illustrative views of the project. Additional plans and elevations are available as part of the project file with the City of Oakland.

The proposed residential units would include market‐rate units but also affordable units amounting to at least 20% of the base units (at least 152 units) and would rely upon the and the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915 et seq.), which is locally enacted through City of Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 17.107, to allow for the increased density and heights. A more detailed discussion of consistency and the required approvals is included in Section VI of this document.

As detailed in the consistency assessment in Section V, the project would be substantially consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies and the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law, which requires that the City grant a density bonus if the project meets affordable housing requirements. Requested variations from base zoning, community plan or General Plan requirements are allowable under the applicable local and State regulations and would therefore not represent conflicts with applicable plans.

The proposed 400‐space parking area would be accessed through T3 via Chester Street and includes 129 stalls within the first and second levels of T3, 143 stalls in the basement of T3, and 128 stalls in the basement of T4.


Figure 1. Project Location


Figure 2. Project Development Areas and Possible Phasing


Figure 3. Floor Plan, Ground Floor


Figure 4. Floor Plan, 2nd Floor


Figure 5. Floor Plan, 3rd-4th Floors


Figure 6. Floor Plan, 5th Floor






Figure 9. Floor Plan, 8th–18th Floors


Figure 10. Floor Plan, 19th–28th Floors


Figure 11. Floor Plan, Basement Level


Figure 12. Illustrative View, Looking South


Figure 13. Illustrative View, Looking North


This page has been intentionally left blank


Retail space is proposed at the ground level under the BART tracks and along the ground level of proposed high‐ and mid‐rise buildings and is intended to include smaller local retail spaces and food options as well as a larger food market and co‐working maker lab space. Also on the ground floor would be ancillary areas for on‐site uses including lobby/office areas, trash/recycling areas, loading areas, utility areas, and bicycle parking. The BART station, a surface plaza, and pedestrian circulation elements take up the remainder of the ground level.

The project would include public ground level open space consisting of plaza and pedestrian circulation areas totaling 89,073 square feet. Additionally, the two buildings containing residential uses also have common open space, including in T1: a 7,830 square foot landscaped terrace and 1,100 square feet of private decks on level 5, a 5,712 square foot landscaped terrace on level 28, and 3,360 square feet of other common use decks; and in T3: a 8,380 square foot landscaped courtyard on level 3 with 17,584 square feet of private open space, and on level 7, a 1,673 square foot landscaped terrace and 15,000 square feet of common use terrace space.

Project Construction

The project is currently in the design phase of development and no details are as‐yet available regarding the construction schedule and phasing. For the purpose of this analysis, however, it has been assumed that project construction would last at least 14 months and likely substantially longer due to phasing of building construction.

Project Approvals The project requires the following discretionary actions/approvals, including without limitation:

Discretionary Actions by the City of Oakland

City discretionary approvals include, but may not be limited to:

Planned Unit Development / Preliminary Development Plan including use of State Affordable Housing Density Bonus waivers/concessions

Minor Variance for residential open space requirements

Regular Design Review for new building construction

Vesting Tentative Parcel Map

Subsequent approval of Final Development Plans for each phase

Administrative/ministerial City permits required for the project include, but may not be limited to:

Tree Protection Removal Permit

Building permit and other related on‐site and off‐site work permits

Actions by Other Agencies

The project will require other administrative approvals from other agencies and utility providers such as East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), PG&E, and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project may require additional approvals related to potential contaminants at the site, as applicable.


V. Project Consistency Assessment

Proposed Project The project would establish the transit‐oriented development (TOD) originally contemplated in the WOSP on the site surrounding the West Oakland BART station, which is currently a surface parking lot. The project would redevelop a surface parking lot with three new mid‐rise and high‐rise buildings, a row of residential duplexes, and a surface plaza and would provide affordable and market‐rate multi‐family housing, office space, and ground‐floor retail space, which is intended to include a food market and co‐working maker lab space. See the project description in Section V of this document for additional detail.

Under State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus and Incentive Procedure, because the project proposes to set aside approximately 20 percent of the residential units for very low income and/or low income units, the project is entitled to increase the project’s base allowable density by up to 35 percent and request up to two additional concessions/ incentives.1,2

Project Consistency Considering the bonuses allowed under the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law, the proposed project is permitted in the zoning district in which it is located, and is consistent with the bulk, density, and land uses envisioned in the Plan Area, as outlined below, as determined by the City of Oakland Bureau of Planning.

In the West Oakland Specific Plan, the project site is located in the 7th Street Opportunity Area on site #23. The project is consistent with the plan policies for the 7th Street Opportunity Area, which contemplate higher‐density housing, commercial office, and government/institutional office space around the core of the BART Station, and neighborhood‐serving retail as well as custom manufacturing / industrial arts/ artist exhibition space on the ground floor.

The project site is zoned as Transit‐Oriented Development Commercial Zone (S‐15W), which is intended to create, preserve and enhance areas devoted primarily to serve multiple modes of transportation and to feature high‐density residential, commercial, and mixed‐use developments to encourage a balance of pedestrian‐oriented activities, transit opportunities, and concentrated development; and encourage a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment near transit stations by allowing a mixture of Residential, Civic, Commercial, and Light Industrial Activities, allowing for amenities such as benches, kiosks, lighting, and outdoor cafes; and by limiting conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and is typically appropriate around transit centers such as Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations, AC Transit centers, and other transportation modes.

1 Government Code Sections 65915‐65918; City of Oakland, 2017. Oakland Planning Code, Chapter 17.107: Density Bonus and Incentive Procedure. Section 17.107.090‐Permitted Number of Density Incentives or Concessions.

2 Government Code Sections 65915‐65918; City of Oakland, 2017. Oakland Planning Code, Chapter 17.107: Density Bonus and Incentive Procedure. Section 17.107.095‐Waiver of Development Standards.


The proposed uses (multi‐family residential, office, and retail) are allowable in this zone. The site spans two height districts, with the T2 and T3 areas in the 60’ height zone and the T1 and T4 areas in the 100’ height zone. The project proposes 262 units in the 60’ zone, which would be 1 unit per 424 square feet, within the maximum density of 1 unit per 375. The project proposes 500 units in the 100’ zone, which would be 1 unit per 263 square feet, within the maximum density of 1 unit per 225.

However, the non‐residential FAR also factors into the density calculations. For the entire site, non‐residential uses account for approximately 46% of the base FAR. Under the base density, that would result in a maximum 476 residential units. The allowable units, including the Planned Unit Area 25 percent density bonus would be 595. The State Affordable Housing Density Bonus increase of 35 percent would allow up to 803 residential units, which is more than the 762 units proposed.

Additionally, both residential towers would require waivers of the following development standards imposed by the Specific Plan and Planning Code: i) increase the number of stories allowable under the Specific Plan and Planning Code; and ii) elimination of the height limits to allow the T1 building to reach a height of 320’ in the 100’ zone and the T3 building to reach a height of 80’ in a 60’ zone. The applicant requests the right to determine a second concession, if needed, as final design plans are prepared.

The General Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial. The intent of the Community Commercial designation is to “identify, create, maintain, and enhance areas suitable for a wide variety of commercial and institutional operations along the City’s major corridors and in shopping districts or centers.” This designation seeks to encourage neighborhood center uses and larger scale retail and commercial uses, which can be complemented by the addition of urban residential development and compatible mixed use development. The maximum FAR for this classification is 5.0 and maximum residential density is 125 units per gross acre, not including the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus. 3

The project includes market‐rate and affordable multi‐family residential, office space, and ground‐floor retail and would create ground‐floor commercial uses at the site complimented by mixed‐use, including urban residential uses. Because the project is consistent with the intent of the land use designations, the project would be consistent with the General Plan.4

As Table 2 demonstrates, the project would also be consistent with the relevant policies of the General Plan and West Oakland Specific Plan.

3 City of Oakland, 1998. General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, p. 150. 4 State law “does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the land use designation for a

site, or an exact match between the project and the applicable general plan… Instead, a finding of consistency requires only that the proposed project be ‘compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in’ the applicable plan. State of California, 2015. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. Save Our Heritage Organization v. City of San Diego (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 163, 185‐186, 187.


TABLE 2: EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AND WOSP

Relevant Policies, Principles, and Guidelines of the General Plan and WOSP

Project Consistency

Policy N3.1 Facilitating Housing Construction. Facilitating the construction of housing units should be considered a high priority for the City of Oakland.

Consistent. The project would involve redevelopment of the site to add 762 new housing units, including at least 152 affordable units.

Policy N3.2 Encouraging Infill Development. In order to facilitate the construction of needed housing units, infill development that is consistent with the General Plan should take place throughout the City of Oakland.

Consistent. The project site is surrounded by development and represents an infill development opportunity.

Policy N3.5 Encouraging Housing Development. The City should actively encourage development of housing in designated mixed housing type and urban housing areas through regulatory and fiscal incentives, assistance in identifying parcels that are appropriate for new development, and other measures.

Consistent. The project would add housing to an urban housing area and would utilize the state’s affordable housing density bonus regulatory incentive as well as potentially other TOD and/or affordable housing incentives/funding.

Policy N3.8 Required High-Quality Design. High-quality design standards should be required of all new residential construction. Design requirements and permitting procedures should be developed and implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the added costs of those requirements and procedures.

Consistent. The project would be designed pursuant to California Building Code and other applicable codes, and would be subject to Design Review approval by the City.

Policy N3.9 Orienting Residential Development. Residential developments should be encouraged to face the street and to orient their units to desirable sunlight and views, while avoiding unreasonably blocking sunlight and views for neighboring buildings, respecting the privacy needs of residents of the development and surrounding properties, providing for sufficient conveniently located on-site open space, and avoiding undue noise exposure.

Consistent. The project is on an already-busy BART station site indicated for TOD development and is expected to develop taller and denser than surrounding uses and therefore, any change in sunlight, views, and privacy in the vicinity would not be considered unreasonable. As appropriate for a busy BART station site, the project includes mostly hardscape plaza and walkways and as part of an area plan (WOSP), more noise-sensitive open space is located elsewhere in the Plan Area.

Policy N3.10 Guiding the Development of Parking. Off-street parking for residential buildings should be adequate in amount and conveniently located and laid out, but its visual prominence should be minimized.

Consistent. Four hundred parking spaces would be provided in below-ground garage on the project site, using the allowed reductions under Municipal Code 17.116.110 (transit accessible area).

Policy N4.2 Advocating for Affordable Housing. The City encourages local non-profit organizations, affordable housing proponents, the business community, the real estate industry, and other local policy makers to join in efforts to advocate for the provision of affordable housing in communities throughout the Bay Area region.

Consistent. The project would involve redevelopment of the site to add at least 152 (20%) new affordable units.

Policy N7.1 Ensuring Compatible Development. New residential development in Detached Unit and Mixed Housing Type areas should be compatible with the density, scale, design, and existing or desired character of surrounding development.

Consistent. The project’s choice of materials, design features, and scale of development would be compatible with existing character of surrounding development.

Policy N7.2 Defining Compatibility. Infrastructure availability, environmental constraints and natural features, emergency response and evacuation

Consistent, with density bonus. The project design would be consistent with the values that define compatibility. The project is located near infrastructure for utilities, transit, and


times, street width and function, prevailing lot size, predominant development type and height, scenic values, distance from public transit, and desired neighborhood character are among the factors that could be taken into account when developing and mapping zoning designations or determining compatibility. These factors should be balanced with the citywide need for additional housing.

community services. In height, scale, and development type, the project would be consistent with existing community character. The residential use would therefore be compatible with the Mixed Housing Type Residential land use goals in the General Plan.

Policy N9.7 Creating Compatible but Diverse Development. Diversity in Oakland's built environment should be as valued as the diversity in population. Regulations and permit processes should be geared toward creating compatible and attractive development, rather than "cookie cutter" development.

Consistent. The project’s choice of materials, design features, and scale of development would be compatible with existing character of surrounding development and is subject to Design Review approval by the City.

Policy N11.4 Alleviating Public Nuisances. The City should strive to alleviate public nuisances and unsafe and illegal activities. Code Enforcement efforts should be given as high a priority as facilitating the development process. Public nuisance regulations should be designed to allow community members to use City codes to facilitate nuisance abatement in their neighborhood.

Consistent. The project site would be redeveloped to accommodate new residential uses and commercial uses per applicable codes.

West Oakland Specific Plan Guidelines – Applicant-Submitted Consistency Assessment

1. Enhancements could include mitigating the sound and visual effects of the elevated BART tracks

Consistent. Residential and commercial buildings will be constructed with required sound insulating window and wall construction to meet planning and building code requirements. The station location has reduced BART noise due to low speed of trains at this station.

2. Create an enhanced local transit system involving streetcar, light rail, buses, and/or shuttles to serve employment, business, and community centers.

Consistent. Site design complies. Access plan is designed to accommodate maximum flexibility of current and future transit modes. This includes planned curb space for AC buses and curb drop-off for transit riders. The site has been designed to maximize the pedestrian access from all surrounding blocks. Bike access is enhanced with dedicated bike tracks on the 7th Street and Mandela Street sides of the project.

3. Ensure adequate parking to attract and support development while encouraging alternative travel modes

Consistent. Site design complies. The on-site Parking exceeds minimum requirement for proposed uses, and is planned to provide adequate parking for the residential, commercial and retail uses on site. The site plan is also designed to maximize the use of transit and non-vehicular use of the site. The Site design is planned to encourage pedestrian and bike access to the BART station and the public uses on site.

4. Improve lighting and street appearance so as to deter dumping and blight.

Consistent. The Lighting plan will be designed to create well lighted plazas and pedestrian pathways through the site. The visual security of all pedestrian spaces within the site is facilitated by locating retail and other public activities along all edges of the development.

5. Ensure that new development employs sustainable ‘‘green’’ building practices, facilitates access to pedestrian

Consistent. All new buildings and the site design meet or exceed requirements for energy efficiency and sustainable


and transit networks, and enhances streetscapes and open spaces.

development. By developing an infill site with a high density of residential and commercial uses, this development is “green” in terms of land use. The site plan has been designed to maximize transit access, and pedestrian and bike use and access to the site, and to the BART station.

6. Promote energy efficiency throughout all aspects of new development and redevelopment.

Consistent. All new buildings and the site are designed to incorporate energy efficient systems and design standards. The buildings will be designed to meet or exceed local Green Building standards. Measures employed during the design and construction of the project will contribute additional environmental benefits. These measures will promote occupant comfort while conserving water, energy, water and natural resources.

7. Encourage sustainable development that incorporates innovative approaches to storm water management and air pollution mitigation, and continues to enhance the well-being of residents of West Oakland.

Consistent. Site is designed to provide innovative strategies policy for achieving storm water management on site. The overall site design will meet or exceed city standard for water management and air pollution mitigation. Wellness design is incorporated into the master plan design concept to encourage the overall comfort and wellbeing of residents and visitors to the site. These measures will promote occupant comfort while conserving water, energy, water and natural resources.

8. Recognize and market the artisan and arts community for their contribution to social, cultural, youth education and the economic development in West Oakland.

Consistent. The site program will incorporate significant and innovative arts, education and cultural programing on site. The open spaces will be programed with year round cultural, community and arts events that encourages use of the site, and encourages local arts and artists within the West Oakland community. This cultural, education and arts programming is incorporated into the overall design, leasing and operations to encourage and incubate the arts in West Oakland.

9. Establish new grocery stores in West Oakland that can serve the un-met food needs of current and future West Oakland consumers. A grocery anchor can also create a customer flow that can be leveraged to successfully attract other retail shops that can then draw patrons from the anchor tenant’s shoppers. A safe and pleasant pedestrian environment will be necessary, especially near the transit station.

Consistent. It is anticipated food, grocery or other neighborhood serving retail will be incorporated into the tenant leasing of the ground floor retail. Planning incorporates large retail spaces with loading and transit access that are conducive to these neighborhood serving uses. The pedestrian environment is designed to encourage local shopping by planning safe, active pedestrian spaces and access and to promote community use and a quality shopping pedestrian experience.

10. Neighborhood amenities such as benches, kiosks, lighting, and outdoor cafes are needed to enrich and enhance the urban setting.

Consistent. The site design is designed to facilitate flexible community uses including: recreation, community events, farmers markets, makers markets, arts events, festivals and other events that promote this as a central destination for the local and regional community. Neighborhood amenities, such as seating, lighting, retail kiosks, cafes, maker spaces and other activated uses will be incorporated into the pedestrian edges of all public edges of the development. This will ensure that the overall development becomes a year round activated urban community destination.

11. Potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians in and around the station will need to be eliminated.

Consistent. The Site Circulation and Access plan is designed to coordinate the vehicle and pedestrian access and use of the site. The design intentionally mitigates these conflicts to


ensure site use enjoyment for all users. Vehicular traffic is minimized on site to ensure maximum pedestrian safety, access and use. Parking is restricted to non-pedestaling areas. Building loading areas are located to minimize pedestrian conflicts, and to minimize conflicts with transit and other access modes to the site.

12. Noise from the BART tracks needs to be mitigated with sound barriers.

Consistent. Residential and commercial buildings will be constructed with additional sound insulating window and wall construction to meet planning code and building code requirement. This station site location has reduced BART noise due to low speed of trains at this station.

13. Mandela/7th 1: Site Planning. Close to the West Oakland BART station, a large civic plaza should be created near the intersection of Mandela Parkway and 7th Street that is surrounded by ground floors that include publicly accessible uses such as restaurants, retail, building lobbies, galleries, and studios.

Consistent. Site design complies. A larger civic plaza and pedestrian passages have been designed into the site design to celebrate the central location of the site and the Mandela corridor. The large civic plaza has been located at the center of the site at the gateway to the BART station. This plaza is located to be more central to the overall site in order to increase its public importance, public access, and public use for community, arts and cultural events. The central plaza is visible and accessible from Mandela and 7th Street.

14. Mandela/7th -2: Massing, Height. Taller buildings are encouraged along Mandela Parkway and in particular to mark intersection of 7th St and Mandela Parkway.

Consistent. Site design complies. Larger buildings are located on 7th street and Mandela. A signature tower will be located at the intersection of Mandela and 7th Street to create a visual icon for the West Oakland community. This massing will reinforce the importance of Mandela and 7th Street corridors.

15. Mandela/7th- 3: Height. It is encouraged that taller buildings mark the intersection of 7th Street and Mandela Parkway.

Consistent. Site design complies. Larger buildings are located on 7th street and Mandela. This massing will reinforce the importance of Mandela and 7th Street corridors. The urban design of the overall site locates smaller buildings along 5th and Chester Streets to transition the scale lower to the south and west portions of the site.

16. Mandela /7th -4: Fenestration. Ground floors should have large openings and a high degree of transparency in the blocks adjacent to the West Oakland BART Station.

Consistent. Site design complies. Ground floors have high floor to floor heights and retail with high proportion of glass store front for good retail transparency. The ground floor retail spaces are planned at all building ground floors to provide activated street edges, and to activate the interior plazas and pedestrian passages. Quality materials and varied design will be incorporated into the ground floor retail design to create visual interest for shoppers and pedestrians using the site.

17. Mandela/7th - 5: Landscape. Landscaping should be coordinated with that of the existing public landscaped areas along Mandela Parkway and should include a similarly high quality of planting and paving.

Consistent. Site design complies. Landscape plan is designed to enhance 7th street corridor and to create a high quality of pedestrian experience and civic prominence. The existing trees will be replaced because of conflicts with the access plan. The new tree planting will complement the overall landscape strategy of the 7th Street corridor to ensure a continuous, interesting and varied visual experience. Planting and paving materials will be of high quality and will be aesthetically designed to differentiate unique spaces within the pedestrian plazas, promote visual access to the BART station entrance, and to create opportunities for cultural, community and arts events. The landscape plan is


designed to create a visually significant destination and center for the West Oakland community and users of the transit hub.

18. 7th Street TOD Env-1: New residences within the West Oakland BART Station TOD area will be subject to Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of 45 dBA DNL in any habitable room, and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard. To meet the interior noise standard, a noise level reduction of up to nearly 35 dBA will likely be necessary from the exterior façades of the buildings facing towards the I-880 freeway and BART tracks and station.

Consistent. Residential and commercial buildings will be constructed with code complying sound insulating window and wall construction to meet planning and building code requirement. This includes required sound insulation from the I-880 freeway to ensure development meets necessary noise reduction criteria. The station location has reduced BART noise due to low speed of trains at this station.

19. 7th Street TOD Env.-4: New development of all sensitive receptor uses at the West Oakland BART Station TOD sites must mitigate the anticipated health risks and air quality hazards at this location through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for air quality.

Consistent. Site design complies. The building design will use practical and cost effective Best Management Practices (BPM) practices in the design of all structures and open space to mitigate the anticipated health risks and air quality hazards. It is also the intent of the overall plan to facilitate dramatic increases in transit use which will have a major impact on the decrease in air quality hazards in the community.

20. Provide a more effective and substantial transition in building heights nearest to the South Prescott neighborhood, with buildings nearest to this neighborhood as low as 2- stories.

Consistent. Site Design complies. The master plan development places the maximum height along Mandela and 7th Street, and transitions down to 5th Street and Chester Street. The Chester Street frontage has been designed with 3 level residential buildings that reflect more of the scale and detail of the structures of the South Prescott neighborhood, to further mitigate the height of the larger structures and to create a good urban scale transition to the smaller structures in the neighborhood. It is the intent to use a more modern design vocabulary along Chester Street that uses scale and fenestration elements that relate to the neighboring structures.

21. Ensure that new development projects along 7th Street are of compatible height and mass as the existing, newer developments within Mandela Gateway.

Consistent. Site design complies. The base of the larger buildings has been articulated with a cornice height, materials and a variety of window fenestrations that intentionally scales the buildings to relate to the lower existing structures along 7th Street and 5th Street neighborhood context. These larger buildings are designed with a clear separation of lower tower and upper towers to differentiate the higher structures, and to emphasize the importance of the lower buildings that create the activated street elevations.

22. Target 15% of the new units to be built in the Plan Area between now and 2035 for low and moderate income households.

Consistent. Site complies. The development plan will meet or exceed the requirement for affordable units on-site.

23. Neighborhood Commercial 3: Height. Except when located at important intersections such as Mandela Parkway and 7th Street, buildings over 5 stories in height should generally include a significant step-back along commercial arterial roadways to harmonize the scale of new buildings with the existing neighborhood.

Consistent. Site design complies. The lower 5 floors of the high rise buildings have been articulated with a cornice and clear differentiation between the lower and upper portions of the building. The building massing is designed to provide a varied base and street elevation that relates to the smaller scale of the surrounding buildings along the 7th Street


corridor. Residential buildings along 5th Street exceed the 5 floor set back in order to have a better proportioned street façade. The building base massing to provide a variety of scales to provide a visually active street scape, and to relate better to the varied neighborhood context.

24. Neighborhood Commercial 8: Landscape. Publicly accessible outdoor space areas should be comprehensively designed with high quality pavement, landscaping, and seating, and are encouraged at the following locations: Mandela and 7th Street.

Consistent. Site design complies. The landscape materials are designed with high quality stone, brick, finished concrete and other materials to create a high quality public pedestrian experience and to maximize the types of uses that can occur on site. The landscape will be designed to relate to a larger vision for the 7th Street corridor. The new tree planting will complement the overall landscape strategy of the 7th Street corridor to ensure a continuous, interesting and varied visual experience. Planting and paving materials will be of high quality and will be aesthetically designed to differentiate unique spaces within the pedestrian plazas, promote visual access to the BART station entrance, and to create opportunities for cultural, community and arts events. The landscape plan is designed to create a visually significant destination and center for the West Oakland community and users of the transit hub.

Based on the above, the project would be substantially consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies and the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law, which requires that the City grant a density bonus if the project meets affordable housing requirements. Requested variations from base zoning, community plan or General Plan requirements are allowable under the applicable local and State regulations and would therefore not represent conflicts with applicable plans.


VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The Abbreviated Appendix N Checklist below compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the WOSP EIR, notes whether the project would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in WOSP EIR, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation SU for significant and unavoidable and LTS for less‐than‐significant and LTS w/ SCAs of MM for impacts that are reduced to LTS with implementation of identified SCAs and/or Mitigation Measures. Topics for which No Impact was identified in the WOSP EIR were assessed against the proposed project and determined to remain applicable so are not further discussed in this document.

The checklist also lists mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval applicable to the impacts. A full list of the SCAs and Mitigation Measures (MMs) applicable to the project can be found in Attachment A, Standard Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (SCAMMRP). More detail regarding the significance criteria used in this Addendum and the environmental impacts of implementation of the WOSP is available in the WOSP Draft and Final EIR at the following link: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PBN/ OurOrganization/PlanningZoning/OAK028334.

When a dash (‐‐) appears in the checklist below, it means that the WOSP EIR did not identify any MMs or SCAs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM or SCA was identified but it does not apply to the project (e.g., the project location does not meet the criteria specified in the MM or SCA). The SCAs that appear in the checklist represent the City’s latest standards, revised November 5, 2018. In many cases, newer SCAs from the 2018 update have superseded the SCAs originally listed in the WOSP EIR and functionally equivalent SCA are substituted without further comment. The numbers used to identify the SCAs are also reflective of the 2018 SCAs, not the numbers used in the WOSP EIR.


A. Aesthetics, Shadow, and Wind

Impacts Related To:

WOSP EIR Findings with

Implementation of SCA or MMs (If Required)

PROJECT

Relationship to WOSP EIR Findings

Applicable MMs Applicable SCAs

Project Level of Significance

Equal or Less

Severity

Substantial Increase in Severity

a. Scenic Vistas or Resources

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

b. Visual Character or Quality

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

c. Light or Glare LTS w/ SCA ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐AES‐1: Lighting Plan (#19)

LTS w/ SCA

d. Shadows LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

e. Wind LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

Under Public Resources Code Section 21099(d), effective January 1, 2014, aesthetics of “a residential, mixed‐use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area” shall no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment. As a result, no further analysis is needed for the proposed project related to aesthetics and the following is provided for informational purposes.

Consistent with WOSP EIR conclusions, implementation of SCA‐AES‐1: Lighting (#19) will ensure the project will comply with guidelines related to light and glare.

Consistent with WOSP EIR conclusions, due to distance and intervening development, there are no public parks that the project would substantially shadow and no historic resources nearby that contain light‐sensitive features with the potential to be substantially affected by shadowing.

Consistent with WOSP EIR conclusions, the project is not within an area where the City requires a wind study for tall projects.

Independent of the Addendum, the project would be required to implement the following additional SCAs related to aesthetics, as found in Attachment A: SCA‐AES‐1: Trash and Blight Removal (#16), SCA‐AES‐2: Graffiti Control (#17), and SCA‐AES‐3: Landscape Plan (#18).


B. Air Quality

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions

SU ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐AIR‐1 Dust Controls‐ Construction Related

(#21)

SCA‐AIR‐2 Criteria Air Pollutant Controls ‐ Construction‐Related

(#22)

SCA‐AIR‐3 Diesel Particulate Matter

Controls‐ Construction Related (#23)

SCA‐TRANS‐4 Transportation and Parking Demand

Management (#79)

SU

b. Toxic Air Contaminants

Construction LTS w/SCAs

Operational SU

☒ ☐ N/A a SCA‐AIR‐1 Dust Controls‐

Construction Related (#21)

SCA‐AIR‐2 Criteria Air Pollutant Controls ‐ Construction‐Related

(#22)

SCA‐AIR‐3 Diesel Particulate Matter

Controls‐ Construction Related (#23)

SCA‐AIR‐4: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants)

(#25)

Construction LTS w/SCAs

Operational SU

a Mitigation Measures Air‐9, ‐9B, ‐9C, and ‐10 are now incorporated into SCA‐AIR‐4 and SCA‐AIR‐6. Only the SCAs appear in Attachment A, not the mitigation measure.

Discussion

Air Quality was analyzed in the WOSP EIR, which found impacts related to construction‐period and operational air pollutant emissions and operational toxic air contaminants to be significant and unavoidable under build‐out of the WOSP EIR. Construction‐period dust and toxic air contaminants were found to be reduced to a less‐than‐significant level through implementation of SCAs. All other impacts were found to be less‐than‐significant.

The proposed project would construct mid‐rise and high‐rise residential and office uses with ground‐floor retail. It is assumed the high‐rise building and potentially also the mid‐rise buildings would include emergency generators that would not be used regularly, but that could be used to operate


elevators in the event of an emergency. The project is consistent with the assumptions used in the WOSP EIR for the 7th Street Opportunity Area. The WOSP and the associated EIR intend to provide flexibility in the location, amount, and type of development. Therefore, the project would contribute to the identified emissions and significant impacts identified in the WOSP EIR, and the air quality impact analysis and conclusions presented in the WOSP EIR remains valid so long as the development in the overall Plan Area remains below the forecasted level. Since the approval of the WOSP EIR, eleven developments, including this project, have been proposed and are under construction or are in some stage of the City’s approval process. As detailed in subsection M, Transportation and Circulation, the current proposal is within the overall development assumed in the WOSP EIR.

Construction‐Period

Because of the size of the project site, the City’s basic and enhanced control measures for construction dust and emissions would apply, as described under SCA‐AIR‐1: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#21) and SCA‐AIR‐2: Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#22), originally combined as SCA A of the WOSP EIR. Although not yet required at the time of the WOSP EIR, SCA‐AIR‐3: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls‐Construction Related (#23) is a currently required SCA and would further reduce diesel particulate matter emissions and related health risk during construction. As reported in the WOSP EIR, these SCAs would keep fugitive dust levels and construction‐related TAC emissions to less‐than‐significant levels.

However, consistent with the findings of the WOSP EIR, it is assumed that the project is one of the large construction projects pursuant to the WOSP that would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for construction‐related criteria air pollutant emissions. This significant construction‐related criteria pollutant emission impact was studied in the WOSP EIR under Impact Air‐5. The WOSP did not have any additional mitigation measures for this impact, but the project would comply with the relevant SCAs listed in Attachment A.

With implementation of SCA‐Air‐1, SCA‐AIR‐2, and SCA‐AIR‐3, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP Impacts Air‐4, Air‐5, and Air‐6 and no further analysis is required for construction‐period air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions.

Operational

The WOSP EIR identified functionally equivalent SCA‐TRANS‐4: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#79) as reducing the operational air pollutant emissions through reduction of vehicle emissions though not below significance levels. With implementation of SCA‐TRANS‐4, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP Impact Air‐7 and no further analysis is required with respect to operational air pollutant emissions.

Residential, office, and retail uses are not generally considered substantial sources of operational toxic air emissions. However, while specifics would be determined during building‐specific permitting, it is likely that the project would include a back‐up diesel generator on the high‐rise building and potentially also back‐up generators for the mid‐rise building(s), which would generate some amount of stationary‐source toxic air contaminants. Consistent with the findings of the WOSP EIR, health risk impacts related to the project’s operational‐emitted TACs to nearby existing sensitive receptors would be considered significant and unavoidable, even with inclusion of SCA‐AIR‐4: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#25) (which includes elements


functionally equivalent to WOSP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR‐9: Risk Reduction Plan). With implementation of SCA‐AIR‐4, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP Impact Air‐9 and no further analysis is required.

Impacts of the existing environment on the project are not required by CEQA and so are not analyzed in this CEQA document and related Mitigation Measures Air‐9B and Air‐9c are not applicable.5 (These mitigation measures have also been replaced by requirements under SCA‐AIR‐5, listed below.) Independent of conclusions of the Addendum, the following SCAs related to air quality and future site users would be applicable: SCA‐AIR‐5: Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#25).

5 Supreme Court of California, 2018. California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality

Management District No S213478. December 17.


C. Biological Resources

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Special‐Status Species, Wildlife Corridors, Riparian/ Sensitive Habitat, Wetlands

LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐BIO‐1: Tree Removal

During Breeding

Season (#30)

LTS w/SCAs

b. Tree and Creek Protection

LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐BIO‐2: Tree

Permit (#31)

LTS w/SCAs

Discussion

Biological Resources

The project site is located within a developed area and is currently occupied by the West Oakland BART station plaza and associated surface parking. Wildlife and botanical resources present within the WOSP Plan Area, including the project site, are adapted to disturbed, urban conditions and would not be adversely affected by the implementation of the project.

The WOSP EIR determined that due to the absence of natural habitat in the Plan Area, special‐status species and habitat as well as wildlife corridors and wetlands were not expected to be present within the Plan Area, with the exception of common birds, which are protected when nesting under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Biological impacts related to disturbance of nesting birds and their movements (Impacts Bio‐1 and Bio‐4) were determined to be less‐than‐significant with implementation of SCA‐BIO‐1: Tree Removal During Breeding Season (#30). (The WOSP EIR‐identified SCA related to Bird Collision Reduction would not be applicable to this site as this project site is not immediately adjacent to a water body or park and does not include substantial green roofs.) With implementation of SCA‐BIO‐1, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP Impacts Bio‐1 through Bio‐4 and no further analysis is required with respect to special‐status species, habitat, corridors, or wetlands.

Creek and Tree Protection

No creeks exist on the project site, and no off‐site creeks would be affected by the project. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the site. Construction of the project would require removal of existing landscaping trees at the project site. The WOSP EIR determined that through compliance with SCA‐BIO‐2: Tree Permit (#31) (which combines the tree removal and tree replacement SCAs identified in the WOSP EIR), tree removal for Plan Area projects would comply with the applicable City of Oakland Tree Protection Ordinance. With implementation of SCA‐BIO‐2, the project impact would be consistent with the WOSP Impact Bio‐5 and no further analysis is required with respect to tree and creek protection.


D. Cultural Resources

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Historical Resources

LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ N/A LTS

b. Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Resources and Human Remains

LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐CUL‐1: Archaeological and Paleontological

Resources – Discovery During Construction

(#33)

SCA‐CUL‐2: Archaeologically

Sensitive Areas – Pre‐Construction Measures

(#34)

SCA‐CUL‐3: Human Remains –

Discovery During

Construction (#35)

LTS w/SCAs

Discussion

Historic Resources

The project site does not include and is not adjacent to any of the historically significant structures identified in the WOSP EIR and therefore identified SCAs related to historic preservation and vibration adjacent to historic structures are not applicable.

The WOSP EIR shows that the project site is near, but not within, the Oakland Point Area of Primary Importance (Oakland Point API), whose southern boundary is one half to one full block north of the project site across 7th Street. The WOSP EIR concludes that properties surrounding the Oakland Point API, other than some 7th Street commercial strip properties that abut the district (which does not include the project site), do not contribute to its historical significance. The WOSP EIR further concludes that proposed development elsewhere in the 7th Street Opportunity Area, including on the project site, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of this API or of the individual historical resources within the API. The WOSP EIR determined that Areas of Secondary Importance (ASIs) did not qualify as significant historical resources under CEQA and therefore, that while the project site is adjacent across Chester Street to the South Prescott ASI to the west, there would be no potential for significant historical impacts on this area. Therefore, the project impact would be consistent with the WOSP Impacts CR‐1 and CR‐3 and no further analysis is required with respect to historic resources.


Archaeological, Paleontological, and Tribal Resources and Human Remains

With respect to archaeological, paleontological, and Native American resources and human remains, the WOSP EIR concluded that the Plan Are is located in an area of moderate to high potential for unrecorded historic‐period archaeological and/or Native American resources. Compliance with the following SCAs, which are functionally equivalent to the SCAs that were in effect at the writing of the WOSP EIR, would ensure that any impacts related to discovery of unrecorded resources during construction at the project site are mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level: SCA‐CUL‐1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#33); SCA‐CUL‐2 Archaeologically Sensitive Areas – Pre‐Construction Measures (#34); and SCA‐CUL‐3: Human Remains – Discovery During Construction (#35).


E. Geology, Soils, and Geohazards

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Seismic Hazards & Unstable Soil

LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐GEO‐1: Construction‐

Related Permit[s] (#37)

SCA‐GEO‐2: Soils Report (#38)

SCA‐GEO‐3: Seismic Hazards Zone (Landslide/

Liquefaction) (#40)

LTS w/SCAs

b. Soil Erosion LTS w/SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐GEO‐4: State General Construction

Permit (#50)

SCA‐HYD‐1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for

Construction (#49)

LTS w/SCAs

Discussion

Seismic Hazards and Unstable Soil

The WOSP EIR noted that there are no Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within the Plan Area and therefore no significant impact related to fault rupture. The WOSP EIR further noted that the Plan Area, including the project site, is located within the greater San Francisco Bay Area, a seismically active region with risks of strong seismic ground shaking and seismic‐related ground failure, particularly the potential for liquefaction at and around the project site. Further, construction activities that disturb soils could result in erosion or loss of topsoil.

The WOSP EIR concluded that compliance with SCAs, which include the current SCAs: SCA‐GEO‐1: Construction‐Related Permit(s) (#37), SCA‐GEO‐2: Soils Report (#38), and SCA‐GEO‐3: Seismic Hazards Zone (Landslide/Liquefaction) (#40), would ensure that the project would not result in significant impacts related to seismic hazards and unstable soils. These SCAs are included in Attachment A. With implementation of SCA‐GEO‐1, SCA‐GEO‐2, and SCA‐GEO‐3, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP EIR Impacts GEO‐1, GEO‐2, and GEO‐5 and no further analysis is required with respect to seismic hazards and unstable soils.

Soil Erosion

The WOSP EIR identified SCA‐GEO‐4: State General Construction Permit (#50) and SCA‐HYD‐1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#49) to ensure that the project would not result in significant impacts related to soil erosion. These SCAs are included in Attachment A. With implementation of SCA‐GEO‐4 and SCA‐HYD‐1, the project impact would be consistent with WOSP EIR Impact GEO‐4 and no further analysis is required with respect to erosion.


F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. GHG Emissions LTS

(Stationary sources SU but not applicable to current project)

☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

b. Consistency with Applicable GHG Plans

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

GHG Emissions

According to the City of Oakland’s thresholds of significance, which were also used in the WOSP EIR, a project would have a significant impact if it would produce total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of more than 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) annually and more than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population annually. The service population includes both the residents and the employees of the project.

The WOSP EIR evaluated impacts related to GHG emissions from construction and operation of development under the WOSP. Future projects and development under the WOSP would be required to implement SCAs that would reduce GHG emissions during construction and operation of projects and, with the exception of new stationary sources of GHG, would be expected to meet applicable efficiency thresholds and result in less‐than‐significant impacts. The project does not include permitted stationary sources of GHG so these are not further discussed.

While the project is consistent with the WOSP EIR analysis and therefore would have a less‐than‐significant impact with regard to GHG emissions, Oakland requires quantification to determine applicability of SCAs. Full inputs and outputs of the GHG emissions analysis are included in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and summarized below.

Based on the GHG analysis shown in Table 3, the project’s estimated CO2e emissions per service population would be 0.57 metric tons annually, which is below the efficiency threshold of 4.6. Because the project would be below one of the project‐level significance thresholds, impacts related to GHG emissions would be less‐than‐significant. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the WOSP EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to GHG and climate change that were not identified in the WOSP EIR.

The WOSP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to GHGs, and none are required for the proposed project.


Table 3. Summary of Project GHG Emissions

Emission Source

CO2e (MT/year) CO2e Efficiency

(MT/year/SP) a

Construction b 21 0.00

Operation – Area 40 0.01

Operation – Energy 2,075 0.49

Operation – Mobile c 5,670 1.33

Operation – Waste 43 0.01

Operation – Water 240 0.06

Total Projects Emissions c 2,419 0.57

Thresholds of Significance 1,100 4.6

Threshold Exceeded? d YES NO a The service population of 4,261 residents and employees was used, see subsection K, Population and

Housing for details. b In accordance with CEQA guidance from the City of Oakland, GHG emissions during construction are

amortized over 40 years c In accordance with SB 375, the estimated GHG emissions from cars and light‐duty trucks are

excluded from the GHG analysis. d Project must exceed both thresholds to be considered a significant impact.

Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan for WOB TOD Project, December 2018.

Independent of the Addendum, because of the size of the project and exceedance of at least one threshold, the project would be required to implement SCA‐GHG‐1: GHG Reduction Plan (#42). Implementation of other SCAs would also reduce GHG emissions. These include but are not limited to SCA‐TRANS‐4: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#79), SCA‐UTIL‐1: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#84), SCA‐UTIL‐4: Green Building Requirements (#87), SCA‐UTIL‐7: Recycled Water (#91), and SCA‐UTIL‐8: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#92).

Consistency with GHG Emissions and Policies

The City’s GHG quantitative thresholds were designed to ensure compliance with the State’s AB 32 GHG reduction goals, as set forth in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) Climate Change Scoping Plan. Since the GHG emissions from the project would be below the City’s efficiency threshold based on the service population (see above), it can be assumed that the proposed project is consistent, and not in fundamental conflict, with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Moreover, the project site is located in a Priority Development Area designated by Plan Bay Area,6 the Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted for the purpose of achieving the GHG reduction target established by CARB for the region’s transportation and land use sector pursuant to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. As stated by Plan Bay Area, a Priority Development Area is a geographic area “where new development

6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2017.

Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2040), available at http://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/56ee3b41d6a242e5a5871b043ae84dc1_0.


will support the day‐to‐day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian‐friendly environment served by transit.” By focusing new development within a Priority Development Area, Plan Bay Area establishes a preferred development scenario, which will achieve the plan’s GHG reduction targets. Since the proposed project would be constructed within a Priority Development Area with land uses at a density and intensity higher than the minimum recommendation included in Plan Bay Area (i.e., >20 dwelling units per acre; 0.75 FAR), the proposed project would further, and not conflict with, Plan Bay Area’s GHG reduction targets.

The project is consistent with, and would not hinder, the GHG reduction goals set forth in the City of Oakland’s Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) and the green planning policies of the General Plan because the proposed project would promote land use patterns and densities that help improve regional air quality conditions, as demonstrated by its compliance with Plan Bay Area’s preferred development scenario. The project would also be required to comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, which supports the goals, policies, and actions of the ECAP and General Plan.

As listed under GHG Emissions discussion above, implementation of the City’s SCAs would also reduce GHG emissions. Overall, the project would not conflict with applicable GHG plans, policies or regulations, and this impact would be less‐than‐significant, consistent with the conclusions of the WOSP EIR.


G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Hazardous Materials Use, Exposure, Storage & Disposal

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐HAZ‐1: Hazardous Materials

Related to Construction (#43)

SCA‐HAZ‐2: Hazardous Building Materials and Site

Contamination (#44)

SCA‐HAZ‐3: Fire Safety Phasing Plan

(#46)

LTS w/ SCAs

b. Hazardous Materials within a ¼‐mile of a School

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ N/A LTS

c. Emergency Access Routes

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐GEN‐1: Construction

Management Plan (#13)

LTS w/ SCAs

Discussion

The project site is not located near wildland areas or public or private airstrips. Therefore, there are no wildland fire risks or risk of airport hazards at the project site and these are not further discussed in this document.

Hazardous Materials

As noted in the WOSP EIR, the site is included in the DTSC Geotracker database as a site requiring evaluation though no known sources of contaminants or known contaminants of concern were identified.7 Construction activities would use, transport, and store on site hazardous materials, including fuels and other chemicals and disturb soils and/or groundwater that may contain contaminates. The WOSP EIR reported that hazards and hazardous materials impacts would be mitigated to less‐than‐significant levels with compliance with local, state, and federal regulations for treatment, remediation, and/or disposal of contaminated soil and/or groundwater and the City SCAs that were in effect at the time, which are functionally equivalent to the City’s current SCAs, including SCA‐HAZ‐1: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#43), SCA‐HAZ‐2: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#44), SCA‐HAZ‐3: Fire Safety Phasing Plan (#46). Impacts of the environment on the project are not required under CEQA and information/SCAs related to future site users or residents are included for informational purposes.

7 State Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor records, available at

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, including record ID # 70000133 for the project site.


Hazardous Materials Near Schools

Because the project would not include any industrial uses, the proposed project would not use substantial amounts of hazardous materials and the small amounts of “household hazardous waste”, which includes cleaning products, would be handled according to applicable regulations. While there are schools located within ¼ mile of the project site, the impact would be less‐than‐significant because the project would not handle significant amounts of hazardous materials during operations.

Emergency Access Routes

As noted in the WOSP EIR, 7th Street in the project area is an identified emergency evacuation route. The WOSP EIR noted that temporary localized disruption of evacuation routes could be possible but that the impact would be reduced to less‐than‐significant through implementation of functionally equivalent SCA‐GEN‐1: Construction Management Plan (#13).


H. Hydrology and Water Quality

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Water Quality & Drainage

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐HYD‐1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for

Construction (#49)

SCA‐HYD‐2: State Construction

General Permit (#50)

SCA‐HYD‐3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects

(#54)

LTS w/ SCAs

b. Use of Groundwater

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

c. Flooding & Substantial Risks from Flooding

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

Water Quality and Drainage

The majority of the site (212,865 square feet, which is 87.5% of the site) is currently covered with impervious surfaces. Implementation of the project would include landscaped areas that would reduce impervious surfaces on the project site (relative to the existing condition) by approximately 10,320 square feet. The project would be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). Consistent with conclusions of the WOSP EIR, because the project would adhere to national, state, and local regulations, as well as the City’s SCAs, including functionally equivalent SCA‐HYD‐1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#49), SCA‐HYD‐2: State Construction General Permit (#50), and SCA‐HYD‐3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#54), the potential for the proposed project to substantially alter drainage patterns, increase the flow of runoff, impact groundwater, or affect water quality would be less‐than‐significant.

Use of Groundwater

The WOSP EIR noted that the local water district, EBMUD, relies on surface water and does not use the groundwater basin for municipal water supply so the impact in regard to use of groundwater would be less‐than‐significant. Additionally, the WOSP noted that development is required to comply with C.3 provisions requiring recharge rates at development sites at least equivalent to pre‐development rates.


Flooding

As noted in the WOSP EIR, the project site is not in an area subject to inundation in the event of dam failure, seiche, or mudflows. However, some areas, including a portion of the project site, could be subject to tsunami inundation in the event of an off‐shore earthquake. The WOSP EIR determined that due to the rare occurrence of tsunamis, the distance from the shoreline, and the emergency alert system, the potential impacts related to tsunami inundation would be less‐than‐significant.

As noted in the WOSP EIR and confirmed on current flood maps, 8 the project site is outside of the 100‐year‐flood hazard zone and would not have a significant impact related to flood hazards.

8 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) #06001C0066H,

effective 12/21/2018, available at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.


I. Land Use

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Division of an Existing Community

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

b. Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

Division of an Existing Community

Consistent with WOSP EIR findings, the project would not disrupt or divide a community, but instead would replace a surface lot with walkways and plaza areas lined with neighborhood‐serving retail uses with increased activation as well as comfort and appearance of pedestrian connections through the site.

Conflict with Land Uses / Land Use Plans

As detailed in the consistency assessment in Section V, the project would be substantially consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies and the State Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law, which requires that the City grant a density bonus if the project meets affordable housing requirements. Requested variations from base zoning, community plan or General Plan requirements are allowable under the applicable local and State regulations and would therefore not represent conflicts with applicable plans.

The WOSP EIR acknowledges that higher‐density development would be allowed at the project site than in adjacent low‐rise residential areas. The WOSP EIR further determined that the increased density was appropriate for the transit site and would not result in a substantial conflict with existing uses if building height transitions were considered at boundaries. The project proposes low‐rise residential duplex units along the Chester Street boundary with the South Prescott neighborhood low‐rise residential units consistent with this conclusion and would therefore be consistent with the less‐than‐significant conclusion in the WOSP EIR.


J. Noise

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Construction Noise and Vibration

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐NOI‐1: Construction

Days/Hours (#62)

SCA‐NOI‐2: Construction Noise

(#63)

SCA‐NOI‐3: Extreme Construction Noise

(#64)

SCA‐NOI‐4: Project‐Specific Construction Noise Reduction Measures (#65)

SCA‐NOI‐5: Construction Noise Complaints (#66)

LTS w/ SCAs

b. Operational Noise and Vibration

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐NOI‐6: Operational Noise

(#68)

LTS w/ SCAs

d. Noise Exposure / Compatibility

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ ‐‐ N/A N/A

Discussion

Construction Noise and Vibration

Sensitive receptors are located across the street from the project site, which includes single‐family homes approximately 60 feet away across Chester Street and 80 feet across 5th Street and multi‐family structures approximately 100 feet away across 7th Street. The project site’s proximity to sensitive receptors, and the type of construction equipment that would be used as part of the project, are similar to other projects in urban areas. Because the proposed project site and its vicinity are part of an established, urbanized area, periodic exposure to construction‐related noise and vibration are existing conditions. The use of heavy construction equipment would occur at different locations across the site. Therefore, the duration and frequency of heavy construction equipment operation near sensitive receptors would be limited on any given day and would not be expected to last more than a few days at a time. The WOSP EIR concluded that the impacts related to construction noise and vibration would be less‐than‐significant with implementation of applicable SCAs which are functionally equivalent to the applicable SCA‐NOI‐1: Construction Days/Hours (#62), SCA‐NOI‐2: Construction Noise (#63), SCA‐NOI‐3: Extreme Construction Noise (#64), SCA‐NOI‐4: Project‐Specific Construction Noise Reduction Measures (#65), SCA‐NOI‐5: Construction Noise Complaints (#66). With implementation of these SCAs, the project’s impact would be less‐than‐significant and within Impacts Noise‐1 and Noise‐4 of the WOSP EIR.


Operational Noise and Vibration

The WOSP EIR concluded that increases in traffic noise from build‐out of the Plan Area would be below threshold levels and would therefore represent a less‐than‐significant impact. Residential, office, and retail uses such as those proposed are not generally considered substantial sources of operational noise or vibration, though noise from rooftop equipment can exceed threshold levels if not appropriately shielded. The WOSP EIR concluded the impacts related to operational noise and vibration would be less‐than‐significant with compliance with relevant regulations and applicable SCAs functionally equivalent to SCA‐NOI‐6: Operational Noise (#68).

Additionally, a noise specialist assessed the potential for noise from the BART line and nearby 7th Street to reflect off the large surfaces of the project’s proposed buildings. Even assuming that 100% of such noise were reflected, given the distance from receptors and way that noise is perceived, even under worst‐case conditions, the reflected noise component would increase overall noise levels by only 0.3 dBA, which would not be a noticeable or measurable increase at receptors in nearby buildings. Therefore, the noise reflection would not result in significant noise impacts.9

Noise Exposure / Compatibility

Analysis of existing noise and vibration on the project is not required under CEQA and is not analyzed in this CEQA document. Independent of the Addendum, the project would comply with the following SCAs related to nose levels at future site users: SCA‐NOI‐7: Exposure to Community Noise (#67).

9 Personal correspondence with Michael Thill, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., 12/20/2018. BART produces a

noise level of approximately 69 dBA Ldn at 50 feet and 7th Street a level of 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from centerline. Existing noise levels at sensitive receptors to the north of the project are approximately 72.6 dBA CNEL/Ldn. The reflected source would travel farther as it would bounce off the proposed buildings, and would be 61 dBA Ldn at sensitive receptors to the north. Calculating the combined noise level of existing and reflected noise, the noise level at sensitive receptors to the north would be 72.9 dBA CNEL/Ldn, an increase of 0.3 dBA.


K. Population & Housing

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Population Growth LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

b. Displacement of Housing & People

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

The project would not remove any existing housing nor displace people. In fact, the project would function to do the opposite; serving to combat displacement by providing much needed affordable housing (at least 152 units). The project would result in an estimated 2,287 permanent employees on site and approximately 1,974 new residents.10, 11 The WOSP EIR anticipated significant residential and employment growth, and as detailed in subsection M, Transportation and Circulation, the current proposal is within the overall development assumed in the WOSP EIR. Consistent with the WOSP EIR, environmental impacts related to population and housing would be less‐than‐significant.

10 Employee estimates are based on an office and retail employment density of 5 employees per 1,000

square feet. 11 Residential estimates are based on a residential density of 2.59 persons per household per the State of

California, Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011‐2018, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, January 2018.


PUBLIC SERVICES, PARKS, AND RECREATION FACILITIES

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Public Services LTS w/ SCA ☒ ☐ ‐‐ SCA‐GEN‐1: Compliance with

Other Requirements (#3)

SCA‐PUB‐1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#74)

SCA‐HAZ‐4: Fire Safety Phasing Plan

(#46)

LTS w/ SCA

b. Parks & Recreation

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

The WOSP EIR concluded that while development of the Plan Area would increase demand for public services and recreation, it also includes improvements and would pay development fees to support services and the impacts in this regard would be less‐than‐significant or reduced to that level through implementation of applicable SCAs. The project would comply with the following SCAs related to public services, parks, and recreation: SCA‐GEN‐1: Compliance with Other Requirements (#3), SCA‐PUB‐1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#74), and SCA‐HAZ‐4: Fire Safety Phasing Plan (#46).


M. Transportation and Circulation

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Conflict with Circulation Plans

LTS w/ SCAs ☒ ☐ N/A SCA‐TRANS‐4: Transportation and Parking Demand

Management (#79)

SCA‐TRANS‐5: Transportation Impact Fee (#80)

SCA‐GEN‐1: Construction

Management Plan (#13)

LTS w/ SCAs

b. Substantial Additional VMT

a LTS‐SU ☒ ☐ N/A ‐‐ LTS

c. Induce Traffic LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ LTS

a As explained in the discussion below, LOS‐based impact analysis has been replaced by VMT‐based analysis. WOSP EIR findings were for LOS‐based analysis.

Discussion

Transportation and circulation was analyzed in the WOSP EIR, which found Level of Service (LOS) at Intersection #13, Broadway and West Grand Avenue, LOS at Intersection #15, Adeline Street and 18th Street, and LOS at Intersection #24, Adeline Street and 5th Street impacts to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures or SCAs. Impacts to Intersection #1, 40th Street and Hollis Street, at PM hours, LOS at Intersection #2, 40th Street and San Pablo Avenue, LOS at Intersection #1, queue storage at Intersection #2, and LOS at Intersection #7, West Grand Avenue at Mandela Parkway, were found to be significant and unavoidable under the WOSP EIR. All other transportation and circulation impacts under the WOSP were found to have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts.

The 2010 Oakland Housing Element Update EIR and 2014 Addendum found significant and unavoidable impacts related to traffic delays. The remaining transportation and circulation impacts were found to have no impacts or less‐than‐significant impacts. In addition, the 1998 LUTE EIR found impacts to intersection operations to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures or SCAs. Impacts to roadway segments under the 1998 LUTE EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable. The remaining transportation and circulation impacts under the 1998 LUTE EIR were found to have no or less‐than‐significant impacts.

Conflicts with Circulation Plans

The project is consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and policies, and would not cause a significant impact by conflicting with adopted plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the safety


and performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian paths (except for automobile level of service or other measures of vehicle delay).

The 1998 LUTE, as well as the City’s Public Transit and Alternative Mode and Complete Streets policies, states a strong preference for encouraging the use of non‐automobile transportation modes, such as transit, bicycling, and walking. The project would encourage the use of non‐automobile transportation modes by locating a mixed‐use project (residential, office, and retail) in an area that is becoming a more dense, walkable urban environment and is well‐served by both local and regional transit. The project would further discourage driving in the project vicinity by eliminating 337 existing parking spaces at the existing West Oakland BART Station.

The project is consistent with both the City’s 2017 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2007 Bicycle Master Plan as it would not make major modifications to existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the surrounding areas and would not adversely affect installation of future facilities.

Further, the project is required to prepare and implement a Transportation and Parking Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan) because it would generate more than 50 peak hour trips (see separate Transportation and Parking Demand Management memorandum for more detail). The TDM Plan includes on‐going operational strategies, as well as infrastructure improvements in the project vicinity, that encourage the use of non‐automobile travel modes.

The major off‐site infrastructure improvements included in the project consist of:

New Class 4 bicycle lanes along both directions of 7th Street and Mandela Parkway adjacent to the project.

Improved sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities along the project frontages and pedestrian safety and accessibility improvements along the corridor and at intersections.

Enhanced bus facilities along the project frontage.

These improvements would not only benefit the project residents, workers, and visitors, but also residents, workers, and visitors in the areas surrounding the project site, including BART riders. In addition, these improvements are also consistent with the City’s adopted plans, ordinances, and policies relating to safety and performance of the circulation system because they improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment in the vicinity of the project.

Overall, the project would not conflict with adopted plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the safety and performance of the circulation system. This is a less‐than‐significant impact; no mitigation measures are required.

In addition, the project is consistent with the WOSP EIR, which evaluated the impacts of developments in the West Oakland area, as described below.

WOSP EIR Traffic Analysis

The project site is located within the WOSP Area. The development evaluated in the WOSP EIR represents the reasonably foreseeable development expected to occur in the next 20 to 25 years in the WOSP Area. The WOSP and its EIR intend to provide flexibility in the location, amount, and type of development. Thus, as long as the trip generation for the overall WOSP Area remains below the


levels estimated in the WOSP EIR, the traffic impact analysis presented in the WOSP EIR continues to remain valid.

Since the certification of the WOSP EIR, 11 developments, including this project, have been proposed and are in some stage of the City’s approval process at this time. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation for these developments. The 11 developments combined would generate about 1,305 AM peak hour and 1,452 PM peak hour trips. The combined trip generation is less than the total trip generation estimated in the WOSP EIR. Similarly, inclusive of the project, the 11 developments currently entitled and proposed within the WOSP Area are substantially less than the total cumulative development assumed within the WOSP Area by the WOSP EIR.

Table 4. Trip Generation for Development Projects within the WOSP Area

Project Name

AM Peak Hour

PM Peak Hour

2201 Filbert (Icehouse)a 52 84

532 Union Street (The Union Project)b 34 47

1708 Wood Street (Roadway Express)c 50 58

Mandela Parkway Hotel d 135 141

914 West Grand Avenue e 15 17

34th and San Pablo Affordable Housing Development f

38 41

1450 32nd Street g 12 15

1919 Market Street h 34 41

801 Pine Street (The Phoenix) i 84 97

500 Kirkham Street j 384 399

West Oakland BART Project k 472 548

Total Projects Trips 1,310 1,488

WOSP Estimated Trip Generation l 5,537 6,698

Percent Complete 24% 22% a Source: West Grand Avenue & Market Street CEQA Analysis, August 20, 2015. b Source: 532 Union Street CEQA Analysis, July 15, 2016. c Source: 1708 Wood Street CEQA Analysis, June 20, 2016. d Source: 914 West Grand Avenue Project in Oakland – Transportation Impact Review, November 17, 2017. e Source: Mandela Hotel in Oakland – Transportation Assessment, November 29, 2017. f Source: 34th and San Pablo Project – Transportation Impact Review, October 20, 2017. g Source: 1450 32nd Street – Preliminary Transportation Impact Analysis, July 28, 2017. h Source: 1919 Market Street Project in Oakland – Preliminary Transportation Assessment, August 8, 2017. i Source: 500 Kirkham Street – Planning‐Related Non‐CEQA Transportation Impact Review, January X, 2019 j Source: The Phoenix – Transportation Assessment (Non‐CEQA Memorandum), November 29, 2018 k Source: West Oakland BART Project Planning‐Related Non‐CEQA Transportation Impact Review, January X, 2019. l Source: West Oakland Specific Plan Draft EIR, Table 4.10‐4, May 2014.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2019.


The project is located in the 7th Street Opportunity Area and is consistent with the assumptions used in the WOSP EIR for the 7th Street Opportunity Area. Since the project, combined with other currently proposed developments in the WOSP Area, would generate fewer automobile trips than assumed in the WOSP EIR, the project would not result in additional impacts on traffic operations at the intersections analyzed in the WOSP EIR. In addition, all the mitigation measures identified in the WOSP EIR are included in the citywide Transportation Impact Fee (TIF), implemented as SCA‐TRANS‐5: Transportation Impact Fee (#80). SCA‐TRANS‐4: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#79) and SCA‐GEN‐1: Construction Management Plan (#13) would also be applicable to ensure consistency with applicable plans and regulations.

Substantial Additional VMT

On September 21, 2016, the City of Oakland’s Planning Commission directed staff to update the CEQA Thresholds of Significance Guidelines related to transportation impacts in order to implement the directive from Senate Bill 743 to modify local environmental review processes by removing automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, as a significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA.12 The Planning Commission direction aligns with draft proposed guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the City’s approach to transportation impact analysis, with adopted plans and polices related to transportation, which promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Consistent with the Planning Commission direction and the Senate Bill 743 requirements, the City of Oakland published the revised Transportation Impact Review Guidelines on April 14, 2017 to guide the evaluation of the transportation impacts associated with land use development projects.

Many factors affect travel behavior, including density of development, diversity of land uses, design of the transportation network, access to regional destinations, distance to high‐quality transit, development scale, demographics, and transportation demand management. Typically, low‐density development that is located at a great distance from other land uses, in areas with poor access to non‐single occupancy vehicle travel modes generate more vehicle travel compared to development located in urban areas, where a higher density of development, a mix of land uses, and non‐single occupancy vehicle travel options are available.

Given these travel behavior factors, most of Oakland has lower VMT per capita and VMT per worker ratios than the nine‐county San Francisco Bay Area region. Further, within the City of Oakland, some neighborhoods may have lower VMT ratios than others.

VMT Estimate

Neighborhoods within Oakland are expressed geographically in transportation analysis zones (TAZ), which are used in transportation planning models for transportation analysis and other planning purposes. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Travel Model includes 116 TAZs within Oakland that vary in size from a few city blocks in the downtown core, to multiple blocks in outer neighborhoods, to even larger geographic areas in lower‐density neighborhoods.

12 Steinberg, 2013. (Senate Bill SB 743)


The MTC Travel Model is a model that assigns all predicted trips within, across, or to/from the nine‐county San Francisco Bay Area region onto the roadway network and the transit system by mode (single‐driver and carpool vehicle, biking, walking, or transit) and transit carrier (bus, rail) for a particular scenario.

The travel behavior from MTC Travel Model is modeled based on the following inputs:

Socioeconomic data developed by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

Population data created using the 2000 US Census and modified using the open source PopSyn software.

Zonal accessibility measurements for destinations of interest.

Travel characteristics and vehicle ownership rates derived from the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS).

Observed vehicle counts and transit boardings.

The daily VMT output from the MTC Travel Model for residential and office uses comes from a tour‐based analysis. The tour‐based analysis examines the entire chain of trips over the course of a day, not just trips to and from the project site. In this way, all of the VMT for an individual resident or employee is included; not just trips into and out of the person’s home or workplace. For example, a resident leaves her apartment in the morning, stops for coffee, and then goes to the office. In the afternoon she heads out to lunch, and then returns to the office, with a stop at the drycleaners on the way. After work, she goes to the gym to work out, and then joins some friends at a restaurant for dinner before returning home. All the stops and trips within her day form her “tour”. The tour‐based approach would add up the total number of miles driven over the course of her tour and assign it as her daily VMT.

Based on the MTC Travel Model, the regional average daily VMT per capita is 15.0 under 2020 conditions and 13.8 under 2040 conditions. The regional average daily VMT per worker is 21.8 under 2020 conditions and 20.3 under 2040 conditions.

Thresholds of Significance for VMT

According to the City of Oakland Transportation Impact Review Guidelines (TIRG), the following are thresholds of significance related to substantial additional VMT:

For residential projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent.

For office projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per worker minus 15 percent.

For retail projects, a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it results in a net increase in total VMT.

Screening Criteria

VMT impacts would be less than significant for a project if any of the identified screening criteria outlined below are met:

1. Small Projects: The project generates fewer than 100 vehicle trips per day


2. Low‐VMT Areas: The project meets map‐based screening criteria by being located in an area that exhibits below threshold VMT, or 15 percent or more below the regional average

3. Near Transit Stations: The project is located in a Transit Priority Area or within a one‐half mile of a Major Transit Corridor or Stop13 and satisfies the following:

Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of more than 0.75.

Includes less parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than other typical nearby uses, or less than required by the City (if parking minimums pertain to the site) or allowed without a conditional use permit (if minimums and/or maximums pertain to the site).

And is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the MTC).

The project satisfies the Near Transit Stations (#3) criterion as described below.

Criterion #1: Small Projects

The project would generate more than 100 vehicle trips per day and therefore does not meet criterion #1.

Criterion #2: Low‐VMT Area

Table 5 shows the estimated 2020 and 2040 VMT per capita and VMT per worker for TAZ 965, the TAZ in which the project is located, as well as the applicable VMT thresholds of 15 percent below the regional average. As shown in Table 5, the 2020 estimated average daily VMT per capita in the project TAZ is less than the regional averages minus 15 percent. However, the 2040 VMT per capita and both the 2020 and 2040 VMT per worker in TAZ 965 is greater than the regional average minus 15 percent.

Note that TAZ 965 has more than double the estimated VMT per capita and VMT per worker than other nearby TAZs. Although the West Oakland BART Station is located in TAZ 965, the MTC Model does not accurately reflect the proximity of the uses in the TAZ, especially the proposed project, to the BART Station because TAZ 965 is a relatively large TAZ (it is more than three or four times the size of the other nearby TAZs and includes the Port of Oakland to the West which is not very transit accessible.) The Model assumes that all the developments in the TAZ are uniformly distributed throughout the TAZ; even though many uses, such as the proposed project, are concentrated around the BART Station. Considering that the proposed project would consist of diverse uses with high densities adjacent to the BART station, it is expected that its VMT per capita and VMT per worker would be lower than the TAZ averages shown in Table 5. It is likely that the project would generate less VMT per capita and/or VMT per worker than the regional average minus 15 percent. However, since TAZ 965 does not meet the map‐based screening criteria, it is conservatively assumed that the residential and office components of the project cannot be presumed to result in less than substantial additional VMT under the screening criterion.

13 “Major transit stop” is defined in CEQA Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.


Table 5. Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary

Metric

Bay Area

TAZ 965 2020 2040

Regional Average

Regional Average minus 15%

Regional Average

Regional Average minus 15% 2020 2040

Residential (VMT per Capita)a

15.0 12.8 13.8 11.7 12.5 12.4

Non‐Residential (VMT per Worker)b

21.8 18.5 20.3 17.3 32.0 28.1

Notes:

Bold indicates that the TAZ does not meet the screening criteria of VMT less than the regional average minus 15

a MTC Model results at analytics.mtc.ca.gov/foswiki/Main/PlanBayAreaVmtPerCapita and accessed in December 2018. b MTC Model results at analytics.mtc.ca.gov/foswiki/Main/PlanBayAreaVmtPerWorker and accessed in December 2018.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2018.

According to the City of Oakland TIRG, retail spaces less than 80,000 square‐feet are considered local serving and are not expected to contribute to an increase in VMT. Therefore, it is presumed that the retail component of the project, which would consist of up to 75,000 square feet of ground level retail, would not result in substantial additional VMT and project impacts with respect to VMT would be less than significant.

Criterion #3: Near Transit Stations

The project would be located adjacent to the West Oakland BART Station and would be near frequent bus service at the West Oakland BART Station (Lines 14 and 62 with 15‐minute headways during the peak periods). The project would satisfy Criterion #3 because it would meet the following three conditions for this criterion:

The project would have a FAR greater than 0.75.

The project would include 400 automobile parking spaces. The City of Oakland Planning Code requires the project to provide the following:

o Section 17.116.060 requires a minimum of 0.5 space per dwelling unit and allows a maximum of 1.25 space per dwelling unit for multi‐family residential developments in the S‐15W zone. Section 17.116.110.C allows the residential parking minimums to be reduced by 50 percent because the project is located in a transit accessible area (30 percent) and it would provide on‐site car‐share spaces (20 percent). Thus, the residential component of the project is required to provide between 190 and 953 parking spaces.

o Section 17.116.080 does not have any minimum parking for commercial activities, and allows a maximum of one space for each 300 square feet of floor area on the ground level and 500 square feet of floor area on other levels for commercial uses in the S‐15W zone. Thus, the retail and office components of the project are required to provide between zero and 964 spaces.

Overall, the Code requires the project to provide a minimum of 190 and a maximum of 1,917 parking spaces. Thus, the 400 parking spaces provided by the project would be within the


parking supply allowed by the Planning Code for the project. Therefore, the project would not provide more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than other typical nearby uses, nor would it provide more parking than required by City Code.

The project is located within the West Oakland PDA as defined by Plan Bay Area, and is therefore consistent with the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy

VMT Screening Conclusion

As described above, VMT impacts would be less than significant for a project if any of the identified screening criteria outlined below are met: Small Projects, Low‐VMT Areas, and Near Transit Stations. The project would satisfy the Near Transit Stations (#3) criterion and would have a less–than‐significant impact on VMT.

Induce Automobile Travel

The project would not increase the automobile capacity of the roadway network surrounding the project site. Therefore, it would not increase the physical roadway capacity and would not add new roadways to the network, and would not induce additional automobile traffic. This is a less‐than‐significant impact; no mitigation measures are required.

Overall Conclusion

Consistent with the findings of the WOSP EIR, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to transportation or circulation. Further, based on an examination of the other Program EIRs, implementation of the project would not result in any increase in the severity of any previously identified impacts, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to transportation or circulation that were not previously identified in the WOSP EIR and Program EIRs.


N. Utilities and Service Systems

Impacts Related To:



PROJECT



Project Level of

Significance

Equal or Less

Severity


a. Wastewater & Stormwater Facilities

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

b. Water Supplies LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

c. Solid Waste Services

LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

d. Energy LTS ☒ ☐ ‐‐ ‐‐ LTS

Discussion

The Water Supply Assessment prepared by EBMUD for the WOSP EIR concluded that EBMUD has sufficient water supplies to meet current water demand and future water demand through 2035, including the increased water demand associated with development of the Plan Area during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. The WOSP EIR determined that development of the Plan Area would have less‐than‐significant impacts related to stormwater and wastewater facilities, solid waste services, and energy. The WOSP EIR did not identify any mitigation measures related to utilities and service systems, and none would be required for the project.

Independent of the Addendum, the project would comply with the following SCAs: SCA‐UTIL‐1: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#84), SCA‐UTIL‐2: Underground Utilities (#85), SCA‐UTIL‐3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#86), SCA‐UTIL‐4: Green Building Requirements (#87), SCA‐UTIL‐5: Sanitary Sewer System (#89), SCA‐UTIL‐6: Storm Drain System (#90), SCA‐UTIL‐7: Recycled Water (#91), SCA‐UTIL‐8: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#92), and SCA‐HYD‐3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#54).


Acronyms and Terms

AC Transit Alameda–Contra Costa Transit District

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

City City of Oakland

EIR Environmental Impact Report

FAR floor area ratio

GHG greenhouse gas

LUTE Land Use and Transportation Element

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

PM2.5 particulate matter, 2.5 micrometers or less

PM10 particulate matter, 10 micrometers or less

SCA Standard Condition of Approval

TAC toxic air contaminant

VMT vehicle miles traveled

WOSP West Oakland Specific Plan

WOB TOD Project Addendum Page A-1

Attachment A: City of Oakland Standard Conditions of Approval

The City of Oakland’s Uniformly Applied Development Standards adopted as Standard Conditions of Approval (Standard Conditions of Approval, or SCAs) were originally adopted by the City in 2008 (Ordinance No. 12899 C.M.S.) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.3 and have been incrementally updated over time. The SCAs incorporate development policies and standards from various adopted plans, policies, and ordinances (such as the Oakland Planning and Municipal Codes, Oakland Creek Protection, Stormwater Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, Oakland Tree Protection Ordinance, Oakland Grading Regulations, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Housing Element‐related mitigation measures, Green Building Ordinance, historic/Landmark status, California Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code, among others), which have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects.

These SCAs are incorporated into projects as conditions of approval, regardless of the determination of a project’s environmental impacts. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as requirements of an individual project when it is approved by the City, and are designed to, and will, avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects.

In reviewing project applications, the City determines which SCAs apply based upon the zoning district, community plan, site, surroundings, project proposal, and the type of permits/approvals required for the project. Depending on the specific characteristics of the project type and/or project site, the City will determine which SCAs apply to a specific project. Because these SCAs are mandatory City requirements imposed on a city‐wide basis, environmental analyses assume that these SCAs will be imposed and implemented by the project sponsor, and are not imposed as mitigation measures under CEQA.

All SCAs identified in the Addendum—which is consistent with the measures and conditions presented in the City of Oakland General Plan, LUTE EIR—are included herein. To the extent that any SCA identified in the Addendum was inadvertently omitted, it is automatically incorporated herein by reference.

The first column identifies the SCA applicable to that topic in the Addendum.

The second column identifies the monitoring schedule or timing applicable to the project.

The third column names the party responsible for monitoring the required action for the project.

In addition to the SCAs identified and discussed in the Addendum, other SCAs that are applicable to the project are included herein.

The project sponsor is responsible for compliance with any recommendations in approved technical reports and with all SCAs set forth herein at its sole cost and expense, unless otherwise expressly provided in a specific SCA, and subject to the review and approval of the City of Oakland. Overall monitoring and compliance with the SCAs will be the responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Division. Prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, and/or construction permit, the project sponsor shall pay the applicable mitigation and monitoring fee to the City in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

Page A-2 WOB TOD Project Addendum

Note that the SCAs included in this document are referred to using an abbreviation for the environmental topic area and are numbered sequentially for each topic area—e.g., SCA‐AIR‐1, SCA‐AIR‐2. The SCA title and the SCA number that corresponds to the City’s current master SCA list are also provided—e.g., SCA‐AIR‐1: Construction‐Related Air Pollution (Dust and Equipment Emissions) (#19).


City of Oakland Standard SCAs Required for the Project

Standard Conditions of Approval When Required Initial Approval Monitoring/ Inspection

GENERAL

SCA-AES-1: Construction Management Plan (#13) Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit, the project applicant and his/her general contractor shall submit a Construction Management Plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Bureau of Planning, Bureau of Building, and other relevant City departments such as the Fire Department, Department of Transportation, and the Public Works Department as directed. The CMP shall contain measures to minimize potential construction impacts including measures to comply with all construction-related Conditions of Approval (and mitigation measures if applicable) such as dust control, construction emissions, hazardous materials, construction days/hours, construction traffic control, waste reduction and recycling, stormwater pollution prevention, noise control, complaint management, and cultural resource management (see applicable Conditions below). The CMP shall provide project-specific information including descriptive procedures, approval documentation, and drawings (such as a site logistics plan, fire safety plan, construction phasing plan, proposed truck routes, traffic control plan, complaint management plan, construction worker parking plan, and litter/debris clean-up plan) that specify how potential construction impacts will be minimized and how each construction-related requirement will be satisfied throughout construction of the project.

Prior to the issuance of the first construction-related permit

Bureau of Planning, Bureau of Building, and other relevant City departments such as the Fire Department, Department of Transportation, and the Public Works Department as directed

Bureau of Building

AESTHETICS, SHADOW, AND WIND

SCA-AES-1: Trash and Blight Removal (#16) The project applicant and his/her successors shall maintain the property free of blight, as defined in chapter 8.24 of the Oakland Municipal Code. For nonresidential and multi-family residential projects, the project applicant shall install and maintain trash receptacles near public entryways as needed to provide sufficient capacity for building users.

Ongoing N/A Bureau of Building

SCA-AES-2: Graffiti Control (#17) a. During construction and operation of the project, the project applicant shall

incorporate best management practices reasonably related to the control of graffiti and/or the mitigation of the impacts of graffiti. Such best management practices may include, without limitation: i. Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or

protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. ii. Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting




surfaces. iii. Use of paint with anti-graffiti coating. iv. Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti

defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).

v. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.

b. The project applicant shall remove graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two (72) hours. Appropriate means include: i. Removal through scrubbing, washing, sanding, and/or scraping (or similar

method) without damaging the surface and without discharging wash water or cleaning detergents into the City storm drain system.

ii. Covering with new paint to match the color of the surrounding surface. iii. Replacing with new surfacing (with City permits if required).

SCA-AES-3: Landscape Plan (#18) a. Landscape Plan Required The project applicant shall submit a final Landscape Plan for City review and approval that is consistent with the approved Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan shall be included with the set of drawings submitted for the construction-related permit and shall comply with the landscape requirements of chapter 17.124 of the Planning Code. Proposed plants shall be predominantly drought-tolerant. Specification of any street trees shall comply with the Master Street Tree List and Tree Planting Guidelines (which can be viewed at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak042662.pdf and http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/form/oak025595.pdf, respectively), and with any applicable streetscape plan.

Prior to approval of construction-related permit

Bureau of Planning

N/A

b. Landscape Installation The project applicant shall implement the approved Landscape Plan unless a bond, cash deposit, letter of credit, or other equivalent instrument acceptable to the Director of City Planning, is provided. The financial instrument shall equal the greater of $2,500 or the estimated cost of implementing the Landscape Plan based on a licensed contractor’s bid.

Prior to building permit final

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

c. Landscape Maintenance All required planting shall be permanently maintained in good growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. The property owner shall be responsible for




maintaining planting in adjacent public rights-of-way. All required fences, walls, and irrigation systems shall be permanently maintained in good condition and, whenever necessary, repaired or replaced.

SCA-AES-4: Lighting (#19) Proposed new exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties.


N/A Bureau of Building

SCA-AES-5: Public Art for Private Development (#20) The project is subject to the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, adopted by Ordinance No. 13275 C.M.S. (“Ordinance”). The public art contribution requirements are equivalent to one-half percent (0.5%) for the “residential” building development costs, and one percent (1.0%) for the “non-residential” building development costs. The contribution requirement can be met through: 1) the installation of freely accessible art at the site; 2) the installation of freely accessible art within one-quarter mile of the site; or 3) satisfaction of alternative compliance methods described in the Ordinance, including, but not limited to, payment of an in-lieu fee contribution. The applicant shall provide proof of full payment of the in-lieu contribution and/or provide plans, for review and approval by the Planning Director, showing the installation or improvements required by the Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of installation of artwork, or other alternative requirement, is required prior to the City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for each phase of a project unless a separate, legal binding instrument is executed ensuring compliance within a timely manner subject to City approval.

Payment of in-lieu fees and/or plans showing fulfillment of public art requirement: Prior to Issuance of Building permit. Installation of art/cultural space: Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

AIR QUALITY

SCA-AIR-1: Dust Controls – Construction Related (#21) The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable air pollution control measures during construction of the project: a. Water all exposed surfaces of active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering

should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever feasible.

b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).

c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using

During construction




wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

e. All demolition activities (if any) shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

f. All trucks and equipment, including tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. g. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to

12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

SCA-AIR-2 : Criteria Air Pollutant Controls – Construction Related (#22) The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measures for criteria air pollutants during construction of the project as applicable: a. Idling times on all diesel-fueled commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs. shall be

minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

b. Idling times on all diesel-fueled off-road vehicles over 25 horsepower shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes and fleet operators must develop a written policy as required by Title 23, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off-Road Diesel Regulations”).

c. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Equipment check documentation should be kept at the construction site and be available for review by the City and the Bay Area Air Quality District as needed.

d. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity if available. If electricity is not available, propane or natural gas generators shall be used if feasible. Diesel engines shall only be used if grid electricity is not available and propane or natural gas generators cannot meet the electrical demand.

e. Low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings shall be used that comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings.

f. All equipment to be used on the construction site shall comply with the requirements of Title 13, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off-Road Diesel Regulations”) and upon request by the City (and the Air District if specifically requested), the project applicant shall provide written documentation that fleet requirements have been met.

During construction




The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable enhanced control measures for criteria air pollutants during construction of the project as applicable: g. Criteria Air Pollutant Reduction Measures The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to identify criteria

air pollutant reduction measures to reduce the project's average daily emissions below 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx, or PM2.5 or 82 pounds per day of PM10. Quantified emissions and identified reduction measures shall be submitted to the City (and the Air District if specifically requested) for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits and the approved criteria air pollutant reduction measures shall be implemented during construction.

h. Construction Emissions Minimization Plan The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan

(Emissions Plan) for all identified criteria air pollutant reduction measures. The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the City (and the Air District if specifically requested) for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Emissions Plan shall include the following: i. An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required

for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategies (VDECS), the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date.

ii. A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract.

Prior to issuance of a construction related permit

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-AIR-3: Diesel Particulate Matter Controls-Construction Related (#23) a. Diesel Particulate Matter Reduction Measures The project applicant shall implement appropriate measures during construction to

reduce potential health risks to sensitive receptors due to exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from construction emissions. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods: i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with current guidance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment to determine the health risk to sensitive receptors exposed to

Prior to issuance of a construction related permit (i), during construction (ii)

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building



DPM from project construction emissions. The HRA shall be submitted to the City (and the Air District if specifically requested) for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then DPM reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes that the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, DPM reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels as set forth under subsection b below. Identified DPM reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits and the approved DPM reduction measures shall be implemented during construction.

-or- ii. All off-road diesel equipment shall be equipped with the most effective Verified

Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS) available for the engine type (Tier 4 engines automatically meet this requirement) as certified by CARB. The equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned in accordance with manufacturer specifications. This shall be verified through an equipment inventory submittal and Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to compliance and acknowledges that a significant violation of this requirement shall constitute a material breach of contract.

b. Construction Emissions Minimization Plan (if required by a above) The project applicant shall prepare a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan

(Emissions Plan) for all identified DPM reduction measures (if any). The Emissions Plan shall be submitted to the City (and the Bay Area Air Quality District if specifically requested) for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The Emissions Plan shall include the following: i. An equipment inventory summarizing the type of off-road equipment required

for each phase of construction, including the equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number. For all VDECS, the equipment inventory shall also include the technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, CARB verification number level, and installation date.

ii. A Certification Statement that the Contractor agrees to comply fully with the Emissions Plan and acknowledges that a significant violation of the Emissions Plan shall constitute a material breach of contract.

Prior to issuance of a construction related permit

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-AIR-4: Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#24) a. Health Risk Reduction Measures The project applicant shall incorporate appropriate measures into the project design


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building



in order to reduce the potential health risk due to exposure to toxic air contaminants. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods: i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment requirements to determine the health risk of exposure of project residents/occupants/users to air pollutants. The HRA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then health risk reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes that the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, health risk reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels. Identified risk reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City.

- or - ii. The project applicant shall incorporate the following health risk reduction

measures into the project. These features shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City: • Installation of air filtration to reduce cancer risks and Particulate Matter (PM)

exposure for residents and other sensitive populations in the project that are in close proximity to sources of air pollution. Air filter devices shall be rated MERV-13 [insert MERV-16 for projects located in the West Oakland Specific Plan area] or higher. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required.

• Where appropriate, install passive electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph).

• Phasing of residential developments when proposed within 500 feet of freeways such that homes nearest the freeway are built last, if feasible.

• The project shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far away as feasible from the source(s) of air pollution. Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall be located as far away as feasible from a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods.

• Sensitive receptors shall be located on the upper floors of buildings, if feasible.



• Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source, if feasible. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).

• Sensitive receptors shall be located as far away from truck activity areas, such as loading docks and delivery areas, as feasible.

• Existing and new diesel generators shall meet CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards, if feasible.

• Emissions from diesel trucks shall be reduced through implementing the following measures, if feasible: o Installing electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading docks. o Requiring trucks to use Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRU) that meet

Tier 4 emission standards. o Requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust technology

(e.g., hybrid) or alternative fuels. o Prohibiting trucks from idling for more than two minutes. o Establishing truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors in the project. A truck

route program, along with truck calming, parking, and delivery restrictions, shall be implemented.

b. Maintenance of Health Risk Reduction Measures The project applicant shall maintain, repair, and/or replace installed health risk

reduction measures, including but not limited to the HVAC system (if applicable), on an ongoing and as-needed basis. Prior to occupancy, the project applicant shall prepare and then distribute to the building manager/operator an operation and maintenance manual for the HVAC system and filter including the maintenance and replacement schedule for the filter.


SCA-AIR-4: Stationary Sources of Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants) (#25) The project applicant shall incorporate appropriate measures into the project design in order to reduce the potential health risk due to on-site stationary sources of toxic air contaminants. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods: a. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a

Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment requirements to determine the health risk associated with proposed stationary sources of pollution in the project. The HRA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building



HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then health risk reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes the health risk exceeds acceptable levels, health risk reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels. Identified risk reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City.

- or - b. The project applicant shall incorporate the following health risk reduction measures

into the project. These features shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City: i. Installation of non-diesel fueled generators, if feasible, or; ii. Installation of diesel generators with an EPA-certified Tier 4 engine or engines

that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy, if feasible.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

SCA-BIO-1: Tree Removal During Bird Breeding Season (#30) To the extent feasible, removal of any tree and/or other vegetation suitable for nesting of birds shall not occur during the bird breeding season of February 1 to August 15 (or during December 15 to August 15 for trees located in or near marsh, wetland, or aquatic habitats). If tree removal must occur during the bird breeding season, all trees to be removed shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to verify the presence or absence of nesting raptors or other birds. Pre-removal surveys shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the survey indicates the potential presence of nesting raptors or other birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of 200 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent disturbance to birds nesting in the urban environment, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

Prior to removal of trees

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building



SCA-BIO-2: Tree Permit (#31) a. Tree Permit Required Pursuant to the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (OMC chapter 12.36), the project

applicant shall obtain a tree permit and abide by the conditions of that permit.


Permit approval by Public Works Department, Tree Division; evidence of approval submitted to Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

b. Tree Protection During Construction Adequate protection shall be provided during the construction period for any trees

which are to remain standing, including the following, plus any recommendations of an arborist: i. Before the start of any clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the

site, every protected tree deemed to be potentially endangered by said site work shall be securely fenced off at a distance from the base of the tree to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist. Such fences shall remain in place for duration of all such work. All trees to be removed shall be clearly marked. A scheme shall be established for the removal and disposal of logs, brush, earth and other debris which will avoid injury to any protected tree.

ii. Where proposed development or other site work is to encroach upon the protected perimeter of any protected tree, special measures shall be incorporated to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water and nutrients. Any excavation, cutting, filling, or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter shall be minimized. No change in existing ground level shall occur within a distance to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist from the base of any protected tree at any time. No burning or use of equipment with an open flame shall occur near or within the protected perimeter of any protected tree.

iii. No storage or dumping of oil, gas, chemicals, or other substances that may be harmful to trees shall occur within the distance to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist from the base of any protected trees, or any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter. No heavy construction equipment or construction materials shall be operated or stored within a distance from the base of any protected trees to be determined by the project’s consulting arborist. Wires, ropes, or other devices shall not be

During construction

Public Works Department, Tree Division

Bureau of Building



attached to any protected tree, except as needed for support of the tree. No sign, other than a tag showing the botanical classification, shall be attached to any protected tree.

iv. Periodically during construction, the leaves of protected trees shall be thoroughly sprayed with water to prevent buildup of dust and other pollution that would inhibit leaf transpiration.

v. If any damage to a protected tree should occur during or as a result of work on the site, the project applicant shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the project’s consulting arborist shall make a recommendation to the City Tree Reviewer as to whether the damaged tree can be preserved. If, in the professional opinion of the Tree Reviewer, such tree cannot be preserved in a healthy state, the Tree Reviewer shall require replacement of any tree removed with another tree or trees on the same site deemed adequate by the Tree Reviewer to compensate for the loss of the tree that is removed.

vi. All debris created as a result of any tree removal work shall be removed by the project applicant from the property within two weeks of debris creation, and such debris shall be properly disposed of by the project applicant in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations.

c. Tree Replacement Plantings Replacement plantings shall be required for tree removals for the purposes of erosion

control, groundwater replenishment, visual screening, wildlife habitat, and preventing excessive loss of shade, in accordance with the following criteria: i. No tree replacement shall be required for the removal of nonnative species, for

the removal of trees which is required for the benefit of remaining trees, or where insufficient planting area exists for a mature tree of the species being considered.

ii. Replacement tree species shall consist of Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood), Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), Arbutus menziesii (Madrone), Aesculus californica (California Buckeye), Umbellularia californica (California Bay Laurel), or other tree species acceptable to the Tree Division.

iii. Replacement trees shall be at least twenty-four (24) inch box size, unless a smaller size is recommended by the arborist, except that three fifteen (15) gallon size trees may be substituted for each twenty-four (24) inch box size tree where appropriate.

iv. Minimum planting areas must be available on site as follows: • For Sequoia sempervirens, three hundred fifteen (315) square feet per tree;


Public Works Department, Tree Division

Bureau of Building



• For other species listed, seven hundred (700) square feet per tree. v. In the event that replacement trees are required but cannot be planted due to

site constraints, an in lieu fee in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule may be substituted for required replacement plantings, with all such revenues applied toward tree planting in city parks, streets and medians.

vi. The project applicant shall install the plantings and maintain the plantings until established. The Tree Reviewer of the Tree Division of the Public Works Department may require a landscape plan showing the replacement plantings and the method of irrigation. Any replacement plantings which fail to become established within one year of planting shall be replanted at the project applicant’s expense.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

SCA-CUL-1: Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (#33) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), in the event that any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. In the case of discovery of paleontological resources, the assessment shall be done in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnecessary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented. In the event of data recovery of archaeological resources, the project applicant shall submit an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) prepared by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City. The ARDTP is required to identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The ARDTP shall include the analysis and specify the curation and storage methods. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to

During construction




the portions of the archaeological resource that could be impacted by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practicable. Because the intent of the ARDTP is to save as much of the archaeological resource as possible, including moving the resource, if feasible, preparation and implementation of the ARDTP would reduce the potential adverse impact to less than significant. The project applicant shall implement the ARDTP at his/her expense. In the event of excavation of paleontological resources, the project applicant shall submit an excavation plan prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City for review and approval. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by a qualified paleontologist, as appropriate, according to current professional standards and at the expense of the project applicant.

SCA-CUL-2: Archaeologically Sensitive Areas – Pre-Construction Measures (#34) The project applicant shall implement either Provision A (Intensive Pre-Construction Study) or Provision B (Construction ALERT Sheet) concerning archaeological resources. Provision A: Intensive Pre-Construction Study. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a site-specific, intensive archaeological resources study for review and approval by the City prior to soil-disturbing activities occurring on the project site. The purpose of the site-specific, intensive archaeological resources study is to identify early the potential presence of history-period archaeological resources on the project site. At a minimum, the study shall include: a. Subsurface presence/absence studies of the project site. Field studies may include,

but are not limited to, auguring and other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources.

b. A report disseminating the results of this research. c. Recommendations for any additional measures that could be necessary to mitigate

any adverse impacts to recorded and/or inadvertently discovered cultural resources. If the results of the study indicate a high potential presence of historic-period archaeological resources on the project site, or a potential resource is discovered, the project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to monitor any ground disturbing activities on the project site during construction and prepare an ALERT sheet pursuant to Provision B below that details what could potentially be found at the project site. Archaeological monitoring would include briefing construction personnel about the type of artifacts that may be present (as referenced in the ALERT sheet, required per Provision

Prior to approval of construction-related permit; during construction

Bureau of Building; Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building



B below) and the procedures to follow if any artifacts are encountered, field recording and sampling in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation, notifying the appropriate officials if human remains or cultural resources are discovered, and preparing a report to document negative findings after construction is completed if no archaeological resources are discovered during construction. Provision B: Construction ALERT Sheet. The project applicant shall prepare a construction “ALERT” sheet developed by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City prior to soil-disturbing activities occurring on the project site. The ALERT sheet shall contain, at a minimum, visuals that depict each type of artifact that could be encountered on the project site. Training by the qualified archaeologist shall be provided to the project’s prime contractor, any project subcontractor firms (including demolition, excavation, grading, foundation, and pile driving), and utility firms involved in soil-disturbing activities within the project site. The ALERT sheet shall state, in addition to the basic archaeological resource protection measures contained in other standard conditions of approval, all work must stop and the City’s Environmental Review Officer contacted in the event of discovery of the following cultural materials: concentrations of shellfish remains; evidence of fire (ashes, charcoal, burnt earth, fire-cracked rocks); concentrations of bones; recognizable Native American artifacts (arrowheads, shell beads, stone mortars [bowls], humanly shaped rock); building foundation remains; trash pits, privies (outhouse holes); floor remains; wells; concentrations of bottles, broken dishes, shoes, buttons, cut animal bones, hardware, household items, barrels, etc.; thick layers of burned building debris (charcoal, nails, fused glass, burned plaster, burned dishes); wood structural remains (building, ship, wharf); clay roof/floor tiles; stone walls or footings; or gravestones. Prior to any soil-disturbing activities, each contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that the ALERT sheet is circulated to all field personnel, including machine operators, field crew, pile drivers, and supervisory personnel. The ALERT sheet shall also be posted in a visible location at the project site.

SCA-CUL-3: Human Remains – Discovery during Construction (#35) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e)(1), in the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction activities, all work shall immediately halt and the project applicant shall notify the City and the Alameda County Coroner. If the County Coroner determines that an investigation of the cause of death is required or that the remains are Native American, all work shall cease within 50 feet of

During Construction




the remains until appropriate arrangements are made. In the event that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance, and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously and at the expense of the project applicant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

SCA-GEO-1: Construction-Related Permit(s) (#37) The project applicant shall obtain all required construction-related permits/approvals from the City. The project shall comply with all standards, requirements and conditions contained in construction-related codes, including but not limited to the Oakland Building Code and the Oakland Grading Regulations, to ensure structural integrity and safe construction.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

SCA-GEO-2: Soils Report (#38) The project applicant shall submit a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer for City review and approval. The soils report shall contain, at a minimum, field test results and observations regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, and recommendations for appropriate grading practices and project design. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the approved report during project design and construction.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

SCA-GEO-3: Seismic Hazards Zone (Landslide/Liquefaction) (#40) The project applicant shall submit a site-specific geotechnical report, consistent with California Geological Survey Special Publication 117 (as amended), prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer for City review and approval containing at a minimum a description of the geological and geotechnical conditions at the site, an evaluation of site-specific seismic hazards based on geological and geotechnical conditions, and recommended measures to reduce potential impacts related to liquefaction and/or slope stability hazards. The project applicant shall implement the recommendations contained in the approved report during project design and construction.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

SCA-GHG-1: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan (#42) a. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Required The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to develop a

Prior to approval of construction-related permit.

Bureau of Planning

N/A



Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan for City review and approval and shall implement the approved GHG Reduction Plan.

The goal of the GHG Reduction Plan shall be to increase energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions to below at least one of the Bay Area Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) CEQA Thresholds of Significance (1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population) AND to reduce GHG emissions by 36 percent below the project’s 2005 “business-as-usual” baseline GHG emissions(as explained below) to help implement the City’s Energy and Climate Action Plan (adopted in 2012) which calls for reducing GHG emissions by 36 percent below 2005 levels. The GHG Reduction Plan shall include, at a minimum, (a) a detailed GHG emissions inventory for the project under a “business-as-usual” scenario with no consideration of project design features, or other energy efficiencies, (b) an “adjusted” baseline GHG emissions inventory for the project, taking into consideration energy efficiencies included as part of the project (including the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, proposed mitigation measures, project design features, and other City requirements), and additional GHG reduction measures available to further reduce GHG emissions, and (c) requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to demonstrate that the additional GHG reduction measures are being implemented. If the project is to be constructed in phases, the GHG Reduction Plan shall provide GHG emission scenarios by phase.

Potential GHG reduction measures to be considered include, but are not be limited to, measures recommended in BAAQMD’s latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan (December 2008, as may be revised), the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010, as may be revised), the California Attorney General’s website, and Reference Guides on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) published by the U.S. Green Building Council.

The types of allowable GHG reduction measures include the following (listed in order of City preference): (1) physical design features; (2) operational features; and (3) the payment of fees to fund GHG-reducing programs (i.e., the purchase of “carbon credits”) as explained below.

The allowable locations of the GHG reduction measures include the following (listed in order of City preference): (1) the project site; (2) off-site within the City of Oakland; (3) off-site within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; (4) off-site within the State of California; then (5) elsewhere in the United States.

As with preferred locations for the implementation of all GHG reductions measures,



the preference for carbon credit purchases include those that can be achieved as follows (listed in order of City preference): (1) within the City of Oakland; (2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; (3) within the State of California; then (4) elsewhere in the United States. The cost of carbon credit purchases shall be based on current market value at the time purchased and shall be based on the project’s operational emissions estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan or subsequent approved emissions inventory, which may result in emissions that are higher or lower than those estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan.

For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be included on the drawings submitted for construction-related permits.

b. GHG Reduction Plan Implementation During Construction The project applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Plan during construction

of the project. For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the project, the measures shall be implemented during construction. For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into off-site projects, the project applicant shall obtain all necessary permits/approvals and the measures shall be included on drawings and submitted to the City Planning Director or his/her designee for review and approval. These off-site improvements shall be installed prior to completion of the subject project (or prior to completion of the project phase for phased projects). For GHG reduction measures involving the purchase of carbon credits, evidence of the payment/purchase shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to completion of the project (or prior to completion of the project phase, for phased projects).

During construction

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

c. GHG Reduction Plan Implementation After Construction The project applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Plan after construction of

the project (or at the completion of the project phase for phased projects). For operational GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the project or off-site projects, the measures shall be implemented on an indefinite and ongoing basis.

The project applicant shall satisfy the following requirements for ongoing monitoring and reporting to demonstrate that the additional GHG reduction measures are being implemented. The GHG Reduction Plan requires regular periodic evaluation over the life of the project (generally estimated to be at least 40 years) to determine how the Plan is achieving required GHG emissions reductions over time, as well as the efficacy of the specific additional GHG reduction measures identified in the Plan.

Annual Report. Implementation of the GHG reduction measures and related requirements shall be ensured through compliance with Conditions of Approval

Ongoing Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Planning



adopted for the project. Generally, starting two years after the City issues the first Certificate of Occupancy for the project, the project applicant shall prepare each year of the useful life of the project an Annual GHG Emissions Reduction Report (“Annual Report”), for review and approval by the City Planning Director or his/her designee. The Annual Report shall be submitted to an independent reviewer of the City’s choosing, to be paid for by the project applicant.

The Annual Report shall summarize the project’s implementation of GHG reduction measures over the preceding year, intended upcoming changes, compliance with the conditions of the Plan, and include a brief summary of the previous year’s Annual Report results (starting the second year). The Annual Report shall include a comparison of annual project emissions to the baseline emissions reported in the GHG Plan.

The GHG Reduction Plan shall be considered fully attained when project emissions are less than either applicable numeric BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds AND GHG emissions are 36 percent below the project’s 2005 “business-as-usual” baseline GHG emissions, as confirmed by the City through an established monitoring program. Monitoring and reporting activities will continue at the City’s discretion, as discussed below.

Corrective Procedure. If the third Annual Report, or any report thereafter, indicates that, in spite of the implementation of the GHG Reduction Plan, the project is not achieving the GHG reduction goal, the project applicant shall prepare a report for City review and approval, which proposes additional or revised GHG measures to better achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals, including without limitation, a discussion on the feasibility and effectiveness of the menu of other additional measures (“Corrective GHG Action Plan”). The project applicant shall then implement the approved Corrective GHG Action Plan.

If, one year after the Corrective GHG Action Plan is implemented, the required GHG emissions reduction target is still not being achieved, or if the project applicant fails to submit a report at the times described above, or if the reports do not meet City requirements outlined above, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, (a) assess the project applicant a financial penalty based upon actual percentage reduction in GHG emissions as compared to the percent reduction in GHG emissions established in the GHG Reduction Plan; or (b) refer the matter to the City Planning Commission for scheduling of a compliance hearing to determine whether the project’s approvals should be revoked, altered or additional conditions of approval imposed.

The penalty as described in (a) above shall be determined by the City Planning



Director or his/her designee and be commensurate with the percentage GHG emissions reduction not achieved (compared to the applicable numeric significance thresholds) or required percentage reduction from the “adjusted” baseline.

In determining whether a financial penalty or other remedy is appropriate, the City shall not impose a penalty if the project applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with the GHG Reduction Plan.

The City would only have the ability to impose a monetary penalty after a reasonable cure period and in accordance with the enforcement process outlined in Planning Code Chapter 17.152. If a financial penalty is imposed, such penalty sums shall be used by the City solely toward the implementation of the GHG Reduction Plan.

Timeline Discretion and Summary. The City shall have the discretion to reasonably modify the timing of reporting, with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment by the applicant, to coincide with other related monitoring and reporting required for the project.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SCA-HAZ-1: Hazardous Materials Related to Construction (#43) The project applicant shall ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential negative effects on groundwater, soils, and human health. These shall include, at a minimum, the following: a. Follow manufacture’s recommendations for use, storage, and disposal of chemical

products used in construction; b. Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks; c. During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and

remove grease and oils; d. Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals; e. Implement lead-safe work practices and comply with all local, regional, state, and

federal requirements concerning lead (for more information refer to the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program); and

f. If soil, groundwater, or other environmental medium with suspected contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual staining, or if any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums or other hazardous materials or wastes are encountered), the project applicant shall cease work in the vicinity of the suspect material, the area shall be secured as necessary, and the applicant shall take all appropriate measures to protect human health and

During construction




the environment. Appropriate measures shall include notifying the City and applicable regulatory agency(ies) and implementation of the actions described in the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, as necessary, to identify the nature and extent of contamination. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until the measures have been implemented under the oversight of the City or regulatory agency, as appropriate.

SCA-HAZ-2: Hazardous Building Materials and Site Contamination (#44) a. Hazardous Building Materials Assessment The project applicant shall submit a comprehensive assessment report to the Bureau

of Building, signed by a qualified environmental professional, documenting the presence or lack thereof of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous materials by State or federal law. If lead-based paint, ACMs, PCBs, or any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous materials are present, the project applicant shall submit specifications prepared and signed by a qualified environmental professional, for the stabilization and/or removal of the identified hazardous materials in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The project applicant shall implement the approved recommendations and submit to the City evidence of approval for any proposed remedial action and required clearances by the applicable local, state, or federal regulatory agency.

Prior to approval of demolition, grading, or building permits

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

b. Environmental Site Assessment Required The project applicant shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report,

and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report if warranted by the Phase I report, for the project site for review and approval by the City. The report(s) shall be prepared by a qualified environmental assessment professional and include recommendations for remedial action, as appropriate, for hazardous materials. The project applicant shall implement the approved recommendations and submit to the City evidence of approval for any proposed remedial action and required clearances by the applicable local, state, or federal regulatory agency.


Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction

Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction

c. Health and Safety Plan Required The project applicant shall submit a Health and Safety Plan for the review and

approval by the City in order to protect project construction workers from risks associated with hazardous materials. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building



d. Best Management Practices (BMPs) Required for Contaminated Sites The project applicant shall ensure that Best Management Practices (BMPs) are

implemented by the contractor during construction to minimize potential soil and groundwater hazards. These shall include the following: i. Soil generated by construction activities shall be stockpiled on-site in a secure

and safe manner. All contaminated soils determined to be hazardous or non-hazardous waste must be adequately profiled (sampled) prior to acceptable reuse or disposal at an appropriate off-site facility. Specific sampling and handling and transport procedures for reuse or disposal shall be in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal requirements.

ii. Groundwater pumped from the subsurface shall be contained on-site in a secure and safe manner, prior to treatment and disposal, to ensure environmental and health issues are resolved pursuant to applicable laws and policies. Engineering controls shall be utilized, which include impermeable barriers to prohibit groundwater and vapor intrusion into the building.

Prior to approval of demolition, grading, or building permits

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

SCA-HAZ-2: Fire Safety Phasing Plan (#46) The project applicant shall submit a Fire Safety Phasing Plan for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved Plan. The Fire Safety Phasing Plan shall include all of the fire safety features incorporated into each phase of the project and the schedule for implementation of the features.


Oakland Fire Department

Bureau of Building

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

SCA-HYDRO-1: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan for Construction (#49) a. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Required The project applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to the

City for review and approval. The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall include all necessary measures to be taken to prevent excessive stormwater runoff or carrying by stormwater runoff of solid materials on to lands of adjacent property owners, public streets, or to creeks as a result of conditions created by grading and/or construction operations. The Plan shall include, but not be limited to, such measures as short-term erosion control planting, waterproof slope covering, check dams, interceptor ditches, benches, storm drains, dissipation structures, diversion dikes, retarding berms and barriers, devices to trap, store and filter out sediment, and stormwater retention basins. Off-site work by the project applicant may be necessary. The project applicant shall obtain permission or easements necessary for off-site work. There shall be a clear notation that the plan is subject to changes as changing conditions occur. Calculations of anticipated stormwater runoff and


Bureau of Building

N/A



sediment volumes shall be included, if required by the City. The Plan shall specify that, after construction is complete, the project applicant shall ensure that the storm drain system shall be inspected and that the project applicant shall clear the system of any debris or sediment.

b. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During Construction The project applicant shall implement the approved Erosion and Sedimentation

Control Plan. No grading shall occur during the wet weather season (October 15 through April 15) unless specifically authorized in writing by the Bureau of Building.

During construction


SCA-HYDRO-2: State Construction General Permit (#50) The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The project applicant shall submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other required Permit Registration Documents to SWRCB. The project applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with Permit requirements to the City.


State Water Resources Control Board; evidence of compliance submitted to Bureau of Building

State Water Resources Control Board

SCA-HYDRO-2: Site Design Measures to Reduce Stormwater Runoff (#52) Pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the project applicant is encouraged to incorporate appropriate site design measures into the project to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Minimize impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious surfaces

and surface parking areas; b. Utilize permeable paving in place of impervious paving where appropriate; c. Cluster structures; d. Direct roof runoff to vegetated areas; e. Preserve quality open space; and f. Establish vegetated buffer areas.

Ongoing N/A N/A

SCA-HYDRO-3: NPDES C.3 Stormwater Requirements for Regulated Projects (#54) a. Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan Required The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 of the

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project applicant shall submit a Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan to the City for review and approval with


Bureau of Planning; Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building



the project drawings submitted for site improvements, and shall implement the approved Plan during construction. The Post-Construction Stormwater Management Plan shall include and identify the following: i. Location and size of new and replaced impervious surface; ii. Directional surface flow of stormwater runoff; iii. Location of proposed on-site storm drain lines; iv. Site design measures to reduce the amount of impervious surface area; v. Source control measures to limit stormwater pollution; vi. Stormwater treatment measures to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff,

including the method used to hydraulically size the treatment measures; and vii. Hydromodification management measures, if required by Provision C.3, so that

post-project stormwater runoff flow and duration match pre-project runoff.

b. Maintenance Agreement Required The project applicant shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, based

on the Standard City of Oakland Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement, in accordance with Provision C.3, which provides, in part, for the following: i. The project applicant accepting responsibility for the adequate

installation/construction, operation, maintenance, inspection, and reporting of any on-site stormwater treatment measures being incorporated into the project until the responsibility is legally transferred to another entity; and

ii. Legal access to the on-site stormwater treatment measures for representatives of the City, the local vector control district, and staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region, for the purpose of verifying the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the on-site stormwater treatment measures and to take corrective action if necessary.

The maintenance agreement shall be recorded at the County Recorder’s Office at the applicant’s expense.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

NOISE

SCA-NOS-1: Construction Days/Hours (#62) The project applicant shall comply with the following restrictions concerning construction days and hours: a. Construction activities are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday

through Friday, except that pier drilling and/or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.

During Construction




b. Construction activities are limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In residential zones and within 300 feet of a residential zone, construction activities are allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. only within the interior of the building with the doors and windows closed. No pier drilling or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA are allowed on Saturday.

c. No construction is allowed on Sunday or federal holidays. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, truck idling, moving equipment (including trucks, elevators, etc.) or materials, deliveries, and construction meetings held on-site in a non-enclosed area. Any construction activity proposed outside of the above days and hours for special activities (such as concrete pouring which may require more continuous amounts of time) shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the City, with criteria including the urgency/emergency nature of the work, the proximity of residential or other sensitive uses, and a consideration of nearby residents’/occupants’ preferences. The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet at least 14 calendar days prior to construction activity proposed outside of the above days/hours. When submitting a request to the City to allow construction activity outside of the above days/hours, the project applicant shall submit information concerning the type and duration of proposed construction activity and the draft public notice for City review and approval prior to distribution of the public notice.

SCA-NOS-2: Construction Noise (#63) The project applicant shall implement noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts due to construction. Noise reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available

noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.

b. Except as provided herein, impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used, if such jackets are commercially available, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with

During Construction




construction procedures. c. Applicant shall use temporary power poles instead of generators where feasible. d. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible,

and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the City to provide equivalent noise reduction.

e. The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time. Exceptions may be allowed if the City determines an extension is necessary and all available noise reduction controls are implemented.

SCA-NOS-3: Extreme Construction Noise (#64) a. Construction Noise Management Plan Required Prior to any extreme noise generating construction activities (e.g., pier drilling, pile driving and other activities generating greater than 90 dBA), the project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction impacts associated with extreme noise generating activities. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. Potential attenuation measures include, but are not limited to, the following: i. Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site, particularly

along on sites adjacent to residential buildings; ii. Implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of

more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions;

iii. Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;

iv. Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings by the use of sound blankets for example and implement such measure if such measures are feasible and would noticeably reduce noise impacts; and

v. Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

Prior to Approval Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

b. Public Notification Required The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet of the construction activities at least 14 calendar days prior to commencing extreme noise generating activities. Prior to providing the notice, the project applicant shall



submit to the City for review and approval the proposed type and duration of extreme noise generating activities and the proposed public notice. The public notice shall provide the estimated start and end dates of the extreme noise generating activities and describe noise attenuation measures to be implemented.

SCA-NOS-4: Construction Noise Complaints (#66) The project applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a set of procedures for responding to and tracking complaints received pertaining to construction noise, and shall implement the procedures during construction. At a minimum, the procedures shall include: a. Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the

project; b. A large on-site sign near the public right-of-way containing permitted construction

days/hours, complaint procedures, and phone numbers for the project complaint manager and City Code Enforcement unit;

c. Protocols for receiving, responding to, and tracking received complaints; and d. Maintenance of a complaint log that records received complaints and how

complaints were addressed, which shall be submitted to the City for review upon the City’s request.

Prior to Approval of Construction-Related Permit

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

SCA-NOS-5: Exposure to Community Noise (#67) The project applicant shall submit a Noise Reduction Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer for City review and approval that contains noise reduction measures (e.g., sound-rated window, wall, and door assemblies) to achieve an acceptable interior noise level in accordance with the land use compatibility guidelines of the Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan. The applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction. To the maximum extent practicable, interior noise levels shall not exceed the following: a. 45 dBA: Residential activities, civic activities, hotels b. 50 dBA: Administrative offices; group assembly activities c. 55 dBA: Commercial activities d. 65 dBA: Industrial activities


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-NOS-6: Operational Noise (#68) Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.




POPULATION AND HOUSING

SCA-POP-1: Jobs/Housing Impact Fee (#71) The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Jobs/Housing Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.68 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of building permit; subsequent milestones pursuant to ordinance

Bureau of Building

N/A

PUBLIC SERVICES

SCA-PUB-1: Capital Improvements Impact Fee (#74) The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Capital Improvements Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of building permit

Bureau of Building

N/A

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC

SCA-TRANS-1: Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way (#76) a. Obstruction Permit Required The project applicant shall obtain an obstruction permit from the City prior to placing any temporary construction-related obstruction in the public right-of-way, including City streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and bus stops.


Department of Transportation


b. Traffic Control Plan Required In the event of obstructions to vehicle or bicycle travel lanes, bus stops, or sidewalks, the project applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining an obstruction permit. The project applicant shall submit evidence of City approval of the Traffic Control Plan with the application for an obstruction permit. The Traffic Control Plan shall contain a set of comprehensive traffic control measures for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accommodations (or detours, if accommodations are not feasible), including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. The Traffic Control Plan shall be in conformance with the City’s Supplemental Design Guidance for Accommodating Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Bus Facilities in Construction Zones. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.



c. Repair of City Streets The project applicant shall repair any damage to the public right-of way, including streets and sidewalks, caused by project construction at his/her expense within one week of the occurrence of the damage (or excessive wear), unless further damage/excessive wear may continue; in such case, repair shall occur prior to approval of the final inspection of the construction-related permit. All damage that is a threat to public health or safety shall be repaired immediately.


N/A Department of Transportation



SCA-TRANS-2: Bicycle Parking (#77) The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Bicycle Parking Requirements (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements.


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-TRANS-3: Transportation Improvements (#78) The project applicant shall implement the recommended on- and off-site transportation-related improvements contained within the Transportation Impact Review for the project (e.g., signal timing adjustments, restriping, signalization, traffic control devices, roadway reconfigurations, transportation demand management measures, and transit, pedestrian, and bicyclist amenities). The project applicant is responsible for funding and installing the improvements, and shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the City and/or other applicable regulatory agencies such as, but not limited to, Caltrans (for improvements related to Caltrans facilities) and the California Public Utilities Commission (for improvements related to railroad crossings), prior to installing the improvements. To implement this measure for intersection modifications, the project applicant shall submit Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) to the City for review and approval. All elements shall be designed to applicable City standards in effect at the time of construction and all new or upgraded signals shall include these enhancements as required by the City. All other facilities supporting vehicle travel and alternative modes through the intersection shall be brought up to both City standards and ADA standards (according to Federal and State Access Board guidelines) at the time of construction. Current City Standards call for, among other items, the elements listed below: a. 2070L Type Controller with cabinet accessory b. GPS communication (clock) c. Accessible pedestrian crosswalks according to Federal and State Access Board

guidelines with signals (audible and tactile) d. Countdown pedestrian head module switch out e. City Standard ADA wheelchair ramps f. Video detection on existing (or new, if required) g. Mast arm poles, full activation (where applicable)

Prior to building permit final or as otherwise specified

Bureau of Building; Department of Transportation

Bureau of Building



h. Polara Push buttons (full activation) i. Bicycle detection (full activation) j. Pull boxes k. Signal interconnect and communication with trenching (where applicable), or

through existing conduit (where applicable), 600 feet maximum l. Conduit replacement contingency m. Fiber switch n. PTZ camera (where applicable) o. Transit Signal Priority (TSP) equipment consistent with other signals along corridor p. Signal timing plans for the signals in the coordination group q. Bi-directional curb ramps (where feasible, and if project is on a street corner) r. Upgrade ramps on receiving curb (where feasible, and if project is on a street corner)

SCA-TRANS-4: Transportation and Parking Demand Management (#79) a. Transportation and Parking Demand Management (TDM) Plan Required The project applicant shall submit a Transportation and Parking Demand

Management (TDM) Plan for review and approval by the City. i. The goals of the TDM Plan shall be the following:

• Reduce vehicle traffic and parking demand generated by the project to the maximum extent practicable.

• Achieve the following project vehicle trip reductions (VTR): o Projects generating 50-99 net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips:

10 percent VTR o Projects generating 100 or more net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle

trips: 20 percent VTR • Increase pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and carpool/vanpool modes of travel. All

four modes of travel shall be considered, as appropriate. • Enhance the City’s transportation system, consistent with City policies and

programs. ii. The TDM Plan should include the following:

• Baseline existing conditions of parking and curbside regulations within the surrounding neighborhood that could affect the effectiveness of TDM strategies, including inventory of parking spaces and occupancy if applicable.

• Proposed TDM strategies to achieve VTR goals (see below). iii. For employers with 100 or more employees at the subject site, the TDM Plan

Prior to approval of planning application.

Bureau of Planning

per TDM Plan



shall also comply with the requirements of Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 10.68 Employer-Based Trip Reduction Program.

iv. The following TDM strategies must be incorporated into a TDM Plan based on a project location or other characteristics. When required, these mandatory strategies should be identified as a credit toward a project’s VTR.

Improvement Required by code or when…

Bus boarding bulbs or islands A bus boarding bulb or island does not already exist and a bus stop is located along the project frontage; and/or

A bus stop along the project frontage serves a route with 15 minutes or better peak hour service and has a shared bus-bike lane curb

Bus shelter A stop with no shelter is located within the project frontage, or

The project is located within 0.10 miles of a flag stop with 25 or more boardings per day

Concrete bus pad A bus stop is located along the project frontage and a concrete bus pad does not already exist

Curb extensions or bulb-outs Identified as an improvement within site analysis

Implementation of a corridor-level bikeway improvement

A buffered Class II or Class IV bikeway facility is in a local or county adopted plan within 0.10 miles of the project location; and

The project would generate 500 or more daily bicycle trips

Implementation of a corridor-level transit capital improvement

A high-quality transit facility is in a local or county adopted plan within 0.25 miles of the project location; and

The project would generate 400 or more peak period transit trips

Installation of amenities such as lighting; pedestrian-oriented green infrastructure, trees, or other greening landscape; and trash receptacles per the Pedestrian Master Plan and any

Always required



applicable streetscape plan. Installation of safety improvements identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan (such as crosswalk striping, curb ramps, count down signals, bulb outs, etc.)

When improvements are identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan along project frontage or at an adjacent intersection

In-street bicycle corral A project includes more than 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail, is located along a Tier 1 bikeway, and on-street vehicle parking is provided along the project frontages.

Intersection improvements14 Identified as an improvement within site analysis

New sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter meeting current City and ADA standards

Always required

No monthly permits and establish minimum price floor for public parking15

If proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1000 sf. (commercial)

Parking garage is designed with retrofit capability

Optional if proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential) or 1:1000 sf. (commercial)

Parking space reserved for car share

If a project is providing parking and a project is located within downtown. One car share space reserved for buildings between 50 – 200 units, then one car share space per 200 units.

Paving, lane striping or restriping (vehicle and bicycle), and signs to midpoint of street section

Typically required

Pedestrian crossing improvements

Identified as an improvement within site analysis

Pedestrian-supportive signal changes16

Identified as an improvement within

14 Including but not limited to visibility improvements, shortening corner radii, pedestrian safety islands, accounting for pedestrian desire lines. 15 May also provide a cash incentive or transit pass alternative to a free parking space in commercial properties.



operations analysis

Real-time transit information system

A project frontage block includes a bus stop or BART station and is along a Tier 1 transit route with 2 or more routes or peak period frequency of 15 minutes or better

Relocating bus stops to far side A project is located within 0.10 mile of any active bus stop that is currently near-side

Signal upgrades17 Project size exceeds 100 residential units, 80,000 sf. of retail, or 100,000 sf. of commercial; and

Project frontage abuts an intersection with signal infrastructure older than 15 years

Transit queue jumps Identified as a needed improvement within operations analysis of a project with frontage along a Tier 1 transit route with 2 or more routes or peak period frequency of 15 minutes or better

Transit Operations The project applicant shall, if feasible, contribute its fair share to AC Transit service enhancements to meet access goals outlined in the City of Oakland West Oakland Specific Plan and AC Transit’s ACgo expanded service plan and improve connections to local goods and services. Alternatively, the project applicant may explore and propose other TDM measure(s), including those already set forth in the TDM plan, in lieu of this fair share contribution. The City may approve the substitute TDM measure(s) if the City, in its discretion, deems the measure(s) more feasible and reasonably related and roughly proportional to the impacts of the development.

16 Including but not limited to reducing signal cycle lengths to less than 90 seconds to avoid pedestrian crossings against the signal, providing a leading

pedestrian interval, provide a “scramble” signal phase where appropriate. 17 Including typical traffic lights, pedestrian signals, bike actuated signals, transit‐only signals



Trenching and placement of conduit for providing traffic signal interconnect

Project size exceeds 100 units, 80,000 sf. of retail, or 100,000 sf. of commercial; and

Project frontage block is identified for signal interconnect improvements as part of a planned ITS improvement; and

A major transit improvement is identified within operations analysis requiring traffic signal interconnect

Unbundled parking If proposed parking ratio exceeds 1:1.25 (residential)

v. Other TDM strategies to consider include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Inclusion of additional long-term and short-term bicycle parking that meets the design standards set forth in chapter five of the Bicycle Master Plan and the Bicycle Parking Ordinance (chapter 17.117 of the Oakland Planning Code), and shower and locker facilities in commercial developments that exceed the requirement.

• Construction of and/or access to bikeways per the Bicycle Master Plan; construction of priority bikeways, on-site signage and bike lane striping.

• Installation of safety elements per the Pedestrian Master Plan (such as crosswalk striping, curb ramps, count down signals, bulb outs, etc.) to encourage convenient and safe crossing at arterials, in addition to safety elements required to address safety impacts of the project.

• Installation of amenities such as lighting, street trees, and trash receptacles per the Pedestrian Master Plan, the Master Street Tree List and Tree Planting Guidelines (which can be viewed at http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/report/oak042662.pdf and http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/documents/form/oak025595.pdf, respectively) and any applicable streetscape plan.

• Construction and development of transit stops/shelters, pedestrian access, way finding signage, and lighting around transit stops per transit agency plans or negotiated improvements.

• Direct on-site sales of transit passes purchased and sold at a bulk group rate (through programs such as AC Transit Easy Pass or a similar program through another transit agency).



• Provision of a transit subsidy to employees or residents, determined by the project applicant and subject to review by the City, if employees or residents use transit or commute by other alternative modes.

• Provision of an ongoing contribution to transit service to the area between the project and nearest mass transit station prioritized as follows: 1) Contribution to AC Transit bus service; 2) Contribution to an existing area shuttle service; and 3) Establishment of new shuttle service. The amount of contribution (for any of the above scenarios) would be based upon the cost of establishing new shuttle service (Scenario 3).

• Guaranteed ride home program for employees, either through 511.org or through separate program.

• Pre-tax commuter benefits (commuter checks) for employees. • Free designated parking spaces for on-site car-sharing program (such as City

Car Share, Zip Car, etc.) and/or car-share membership for employees or tenants.

• On-site carpooling and/or vanpool program that includes preferential (discounted or free) parking for carpools and vanpools.

• Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation options. • Parking spaces sold/leased separately for residential units. Charge employees

for parking, or provide a cash incentive or transit pass alternative to a free parking space in commercial properties.

• Parking management strategies including attendant/valet parking and shared parking spaces.

• Requiring tenants to provide opportunities and the ability to work off-site. • Allow employees or residents to adjust their work schedule in order to

complete the basic work requirement of five eight-hour workdays by adjusting their schedule to reduce vehicle trips to the worksite (e.g., working four, ten-hour days; allowing employees to work from home two days per week).

• Provide or require tenants to provide employees with staggered work hours involving a shift in the set work hours of all employees at the workplace or flexible work hours involving individually determined work hours.

The TDM Plan shall indicate the estimated VTR for each strategy, based on published research or guidelines where feasible. For TDM Plans containing ongoing operational VTR strategies, the Plan shall include an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure the Plan is implemented on an ongoing basis during project operation. If an



annual compliance report is required, as explained below, the TDM Plan shall also specify the topics to be addressed in the annual report. b. TDM Implementation – Physical Improvements

For VTR strategies involving physical improvements, the project applicant shall obtain the necessary permits/approvals from the City and install the improvements prior to the completion of the project.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

c. TDM Implementation – Operational Strategies For projects that generate 100 or more net new a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips

and contain ongoing operational VTR strategies, the project applicant shall submit an annual compliance report for the first five years following completion of the project (or completion of each phase for phased projects) for review and approval by the City. The annual report shall document the status and effectiveness of the TDM program, including the actual VTR achieved by the project during operation. If deemed necessary, the City may elect to have a peer review consultant, paid for by the project applicant, review the annual report. If timely reports are not submitted and/or the annual reports indicate that the project applicant has failed to implement the TDM Plan, the project will be considered in violation of the Conditions of Approval and the City may initiate enforcement action as provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The project shall not be considered in violation of this Condition if the TDM Plan is implemented but the VTR goal is not achieved.

Ongoing Department of Transportation


SCA-TRANS-5: Transportation Impact Fee (#80) The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

Prior to issuance of building permit

Bureau of Building

N/A

SCA-TRANS-6: Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Charging Infrastructure (#83) a. PEV-Ready Parking Spaces The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Building Official and the Zoning Manager, plans that show the location of parking spaces equipped with full electrical circuits designated for future PEV charging (i.e. “PEV-Ready) per the requirements of Chapter 15.04 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Building electrical plans shall indicate sufficient electrical capacity to supply the required PEV-Ready parking spaces.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permit

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

b. PEV-Capable Parking Spaces The applicant shall submit, for review and approval of the Building Official, plans that show the location of inaccessible conduit to supply PEV-capable parking spaces per the requirements of Chapter 15.04 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Building electrical plans shall indicate sufficient electrical capacity to supply the required PEV-capable parking spaces.

Prior to Issuance of Building Permit

Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building



UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

SCA-UTIL-1: Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling (#84) The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code) by submitting a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved WRRP. Projects subject to these requirements include all new construction, renovations/alterations/modifications with construction values of $50,000 or more (except R-3 type construction), and all demolition (including soft demolition) except demolition of type R-3 construction. The WRRP must specify the methods by which the project will divert construction and demolition debris waste from landfill disposal in accordance with current City requirements. The WRRP may be submitted electronically at www.greenhalosystems.com or manually at the City’s Green Building Resource Center. Current standards, FAQs, and forms are available on the City’s website and in the Green Building Resource Center.


Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division

Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division

SCA-UTIL-2: Underground Utilities (#85) The project applicant shall place underground all new utilities serving the project and under the control of the project applicant and the City, including all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities, fire alarm conduits, street light wiring, and other wiring, conduits, and similar facilities. The new facilities shall be placed underground along the project’s street frontage and from the project structures to the point of service. Utilities under the control of other agencies, such as PG&E, shall be placed underground if feasible. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with standard specifications of the serving utilities.

During Construction


SCA-UTIL-3: Recycling Collection and Storage Space (#86) The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall contain recycling collection and storage areas in compliance with the Ordinance. For residential projects, at least two cubic feet of storage and collection space per residential unit is required, with a minimum of ten cubic feet. For nonresidential projects, at least two cubic feet of storage and collection space per 1,000 sf of building floor area is required, with a minimum of ten cubic feet.


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-UTIL-4: Green Building Requirements (#87) a. Compliance with Green Building Requirements During Plan-Check The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) mandatory measures and the applicable requirements of


Bureau of Building

N/A



the City of Oakland Green Building Ordinance (chapter 18.02 of the Oakland Municipal Code). The following information shall be submitted to the City for review and approval with the application for a building permit: • Documentation showing compliance with Title 24 of the current version of the

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. • Completed copy of the final green building checklist approved during the review of

the Planning and Zoning permit. • Copy of the Unreasonable Hardship Exemption, if granted, during the review of the

Planning and Zoning permit. • Permit plans that show, in general notes, detailed design drawings, and specifications

as necessary, compliance with the items listed in subsection (ii) below. • Copy of the signed statement by the Green Building Certifier approved during the

review of the Planning and Zoning permit that the project complied with the requirements of the Green Building Ordinance.

• Signed statement by the Green Building Certifier that the project still complies with the requirements of the Green Building Ordinance, unless an Unreasonable Hardship Exemption was granted during the review of the Planning and Zoning permit.

• Other documentation as deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Green Building Ordinance.

The set of plans in subsection (i) shall demonstrate compliance with the following: • CALGreen mandatory measures. • Green building point level/certification requirement per the appropriate checklist

approved during the Planning entitlement process. • All green building points identified on the checklist approved during review of the

Planning and Zoning permit, unless a Request for Revision Plan-check application is submitted and approved by the Bureau of Planning that shows the previously approved points that will be eliminated or substituted.

• The required green building point minimums in the appropriate credit categories.

b. Compliance with Green Building Requirements During Construction The project applicant shall comply with the applicable requirements of CALGreen and the Oakland Green Building Ordinance during construction of the project. The following information shall be submitted to the City for review and approval: i. Completed copies of the green building checklists approved during the review of the

Planning and Zoning permit and during the review of the building permit.

During construction




ii. Signed statement(s) by the Green Building Certifier during all relevant phases of construction that the project complies with the requirements of the Green Building Ordinance.

iii. Other documentation as deemed necessary by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Green Building Ordinance.

c. Compliance with Green Building Requirements After Construction Prior to the final Building Permit, the Green Building Certifier shall submit the appropriate documentation to City staff and attain the minimum required point level.

Prior to Final Approval

Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building

SCA-UTIL-5: Sanitary Sewer System (#89) The project applicant shall prepare and submit a Sanitary Sewer Impact Analysis to the City for review and approval in accordance with the City of Oakland Sanitary Sewer Design Guidelines. The Impact Analysis shall include an estimate of pre-project and post-project wastewater flow from the project site. In the event that the Impact Analysis indicates that the net increase in project wastewater flow exceeds City-projected increases in wastewater flow in the sanitary sewer system, the project applicant shall pay the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule for funding improvements to the sanitary sewer system.


Public Works Department, Department of Engineering and Construction

N/A

SCA-UTIL-6: Storm Drain System (#90) The project storm drainage system shall be designed in accordance with the City of Oakland’s Storm Drainage Design Guidelines. To the maximum extent practicable, peak stormwater runoff from the project site shall be reduced by at least 25 percent compared to the pre-project condition.


Bureau of Building

Bureau of Building

SCA-UTIL-7: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) (#92) The project applicant shall comply with California’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) in order to reduce landscape water usage. For any landscape project with an aggregate (total noncontiguous) landscape area equal to 2,500 sq. ft. or less. The project applicant may implement either the Prescriptive Measures or the Performance Measures, of, and in accordance with the California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. For any landscape project with an aggregate (total noncontiguous) landscape area over 2,500 sq. ft., the project applicant shall implement the Performance Measures in accordance with the WELO. Prescriptive Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall submit documentation showing compliance with Appendix D of California’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (see website below starting on page 23): http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/Title%2023%20ex


Bureau of Planning

Bureau of Building



tract%20-%20Official%20CCR%20pages.pdf Performance Measures: Prior to construction, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Landscape Documentation Package for review and approval, which includes the following a. Project Information:

i. Date, ii. Applicant and property owner name, iii. Project address, iv. Total landscape area, v. Project type (new, rehabilitated, cemetery, or home owner installed), vi. Water supply type and water purveyor, vii. Checklist of documents in the package, and viii. Applicant signature and date with the statement: “I agree to comply with the

requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete Landscape Documentation Package.”

b. Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet i. Hydrozone Information Table ii. Water Budget Calculations with Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)

and Estimated Total Water Use c. Soil Management Report d. Landscape Design Plan e. Irrigation Design Plan, and f. Grading Plan Upon installation of the landscaping and irrigation systems, the Project applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion and landscape and irrigation maintenance schedule for review and approval by the City. The Certificate of Compliance shall also be submitted to the local water purveyor and property owner or his or her designee. For the specific requirements within the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet, Soil Management Report, Landscape Design Plan, Irrigation Design Plan and Grading Plan, see the link below. http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/docs/Title%2023%20extract%20-%20Official%20CCR%20pages.pdf

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times